atte) 
3 Nit 














uit iy 
oh 
a 


‘J 
+ 





hehe) 
at . 





+ 


i 
telee 


#1 gry 





























yy 
tht 








yer? 
Tele) 








ii 














* 




































































eis 


= 


= 












































Steet etetr sete 




































































me 














or 





i 




































































































































































































































































































































































+ 
; 


st 
delete 


oe 





















































ine 
i 










































































































































































Teheley 


atts 












































2) 
° 




























































































. 
a 
ree 


. 


bd 
eee 
tl 


iit 




















‘J 


taht 
nese beh 


oitatsth 


iif 





. 























nests 
+} 




























































































i 














: 



































oi ? 
x au 
st) 





et 





i 





















































Pt oto 




















et 





if 


oe 


it 


Bett 
fiaitutst 


AtaD 
Ong 
fh nn ty 
othe “ale 











wy 








Hayeit 





























. 











st 































































































. 














frat 


ee 


as 


* 
areleteieies 


seleiereles 
. eeneee 
sieht Teles 
ory ce athe 
tee 


thee 
eeeeee 


Dt 

. 

poh tat at 
erelaeee 





sth) 
aletelete 
eeeee net 





THE LIBRARY 
OF 
SANTA BARBARA 
COLLEGH OF 
THE UNIVERSITY 
OF CALIFORNIA 


PRESENTED BY 


MR.eAND MRS.R.W.VAUGHAN 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/ancientitalyhist0Opaisiala 


ANCIENT TPALY 





VIHOS]T 4O ATLSVZ 








I ALVId 


RNCAEN TT TTALY 


HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS 
IN CENTRAL ITALY, MAGNA GRAECIA 
SICILY, AND SARDINIA 


BY 


ETTORE PAIS 


TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN 
BY 
C. DENSMORE CURTIS 


CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
LONDON 
T. FISHER UNWIN, 1 ADELPHI TERRACE 
1908 


CopyricHt 1907 By 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


Published January 1908 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S. A. 


Gena © ae eb 8888S Ee eee EE ee 


TO 
PROFESSORS Dana CARLETON MuNRO 
Moses STEPHEN SLAUGHTER 
AND 
FREDERICK JACKSON TURNER 


OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 
IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE YEAR 
WHEN I WAS THEIR COLLEAGUE 


AUTHOR’S PREFACE 


The papers incorporated in the present volume were written 
in part during the last few years, in part at a much earlier period. 
The earlier productions were printed in the proceedings of various 
Italian societies, or in separate pamphlets for private distribution, 
and in either case came before a very limited public. 

I am led to offer this volume to the English-speaking public, 
both because it presents practically unpublished material, and 
because of the close connection between the various subjects of 
which it treats, since all were suggested by my researches in prepar- 
ing my History of Magna Graecia and Sicily and my History 
of Rome. 

| OF 


TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE 


In translating this volume it has been my aim to reproduce the 
articles exactly as they were written. Owing to the difference 
between English and Italian idiom, it at first seemed necessary 
to modify the text to some extent in order to produce readable 
English. After a little practice, however, it became evident that 
such modifications were not only unnecessary, but even inadvis- 
able, and the translation as it stands follows the order of presenta- 
tion of the original material very closely. 

The chapter on the Temple of the Sirens was translated by a 
college student while Professor Pais was in this country two years 
ago, and appeared in the American Journal of Archaeology. The 
translation is good, but to my mind loses force because of the 
number of changes made in the arrangement of the material. 
It has been practically retranslated for the present volume. 

In his preface Professor Pais has alluded to the limited public 
to which these articles were presented. He himself did not possess 
a copy of the chapter on Strabo, and after writing to those of his 
friends to whom the few pamphlets which were printed had been 
presented, was able to secure but a single copy, and that from 
Professor Beloch in Germany. 

I am greatly indebted to Professor Pais for his kindness in 
explaining the various points concerning which I was in doubt. 
I spent nearly a week at his villa near Naples while engaged upon 
the translation, and was thus enabled to secure his advice in many 
cases where my own ignorance of the subject-matter might have 


led to error. 
C.D: & 





ss : ers Ieee . hy = Ca ‘a 
Neal g's te NN EY ced eS 





LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 
Plate I. Castle of Ischia (see chap. xvi) . . . . Frontispiece 
Fig. 1. Coins of the Auruncians (see pp.2f.). . . . . . 26 


- Fig. 2. Coin of the alliance between Temesa and Croton (see p. 43) 51 
Bigs 3+ oom OF erie. Ser Ao: ca: Te Ga are Gen ce nd © a ie Oe 


Fig. 4. Coin of the alliance between Sybaris and Posidonia (see p. 
av he Son er MP Me, A Sess CEN gl. Ch Say a de Oe ee eee 


Fig. 5. Coin of the alliance between Siris and Pyxus (see p. 83). 86 


Pinte Ll: + iby, facing 25 fe, Be a eS ee ee oS 
Pig.0, “Como: hegetiums: jo. 2s <3% <4 os fh ge ay Me 
Big. 73)" Com.of Perpetuum os 3.5% os 2 sale 2 ee hs EE 
Pie COMMOLIN AGROB)? ee 29.2 tee aN ec uae “dees aay a Be CeO 
Plate III. Archaic relief from S. Mauro, facing . . . . . 132 
Plate IV. Ancient column near the Assinarus, facing . . . 148 
Plate V. Etruscan column at Pompeii, facing. . . . . . 174 
Pip. G; < Coms of Hyra (ee chap. sv) <a. “ee ee Gs 2 Se 
Fig. ro. Coin of Fenser (seechap.xv). . . . . . . . 180 
Plate VI. Archaic head from Temple of the Sirens, facing . . 214 
PAS Si er eens OL OLTenLO: oe. ahh 4s yy eae ie, ae 


Plate VII. Inscription referring to cult of Athena Siciliana, facing 218 
Plate VIII. Funerary relief (front of slab shown in Plate VII), 


PACT cet ape time tE, ie ae A tp eh Bute seg ee 
Plate IX. Enna (Castrogiovanni), facing . . . . . . . 250 
Plate X. Gate'of the Citadel; Perugia, facing... . . .- . . 368 


Plate XI. Relief and Inscription from Sardinia, facing . . . 372 





TABLE OF CONTENTS 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 


THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN REGIUM AND TARENTUM 
AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 


THE LEGEND OF EuTHymMuUS oF LocRI ... . 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON . ....e. 
SE ORIGIN OF OIRIO 84) Po. Tat en hd, Aad She elie 
THE LAR BOR (OF SATYRIUM: 5. i “oe ae eo SS 
LHGBIAS © es ots BS oa! © eA ig 


THE EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF Epirus TO ITALY 
PRYR = VERRUGAG oo tapers ae en ee ae 

PRGETIUM AND. NAXOSs: OG. oy5054 So" ye oy alos 
| ce Coe 5 ee Eee a a eg et ie eR eA ene 


THE ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO AND THE 
ANCIENT CITIES OF THE HERAEAN PLATEAU . 


THE DEFEAT OF THE ATHENIANS AT THE ASSINARUS 


THE PRETENDED EXPEDITION OF AGATHOCLES 
AGAINST ®OINIKH Ls iw nat oat Te eee pone: 


THE DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA. . 
CONCERNING THE EARLY History oF ISCHIA. . 
NAPLES AND ISCHIA AT THE TIME OF SULLA. . 
THE TEMPLE OF THE SIRENS NEAR SORRENTO 


THE CULT oF ATHENA SICILIANA AND THE AQHNAION 
OF PUNTA DELLA CAMPANELLA 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF ROME 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE, AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS IN THE 
EARLIEST HisTOoRY OF ROME. . 
xiii 


PAGE 


117 


123 


131 


147 


157 
165 
181 
205 


213 


217 


233 


393 


XXVI. 


APPENDIX 


INDEX 


CONTENTS 


. THe GREEK FLEET WHICH APPEARED OFF THE COAST 


OF LATIUM IN 349 B.C. 


. CONCERNING THE EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 


. AN Error IN APPIAN CONCERNING THE Bellum Peru- 


sinum 


. CONCERNING Two GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN 


SARDINIA 


CONCERNING THE TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH STRABO 
ComposEeD His HIstToRICAL GEOGRAPHY 


345 
395 


367 


371 


379 
429 
433 


I 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 
E 


From:a period at least as early as the fifth century B. c. Greek 
writers have counted the Ausonians among the oldest peoples of 
Italy, and have given the name of Ausonia to a certain more or 
less extended portion of the peninsula.*_ There is some controversy, 
however, concerning the exact location of the home of this people, 
and also concerning the historical events which led to their growth 
in power and subsequent decay. The subject is worthy of atten- 
tion, both because ancient writers do not entirely agree in the 
matter, and because modern authorities do not seem to have derived 
all the information possible from the fragments from ancient writers 
at our command. Certain modern critics, for example, have 
erred in assigning to the Ausonians a much smaller expanse of 
territory than that which they really occupied, and have not properly 
valued a series of references which deserve more attention. They 
have also neglected to take into consideration a number of ancient 
geographical names which still exist, and which will enable us 
to determine with much greater accuracy the amount of territory 
which this people in reality occupied. 

According to Polybius, as quoted by Strabo, the Ausonians 
and the Opicians of Campania were two distinct peoples.?__ Hellani- 
cus also mentions them as if they were separate peoples. On 
the other hand, Antiochus, as quoted by Strabo in the passage 
mentioned and also Aristotle, in a passage which we shall discuss 


t Among the various passages which allude to the Ausonians as the earliest 
inhabitants of Italy (cf. Dion. Hal. i. 35 extr.) should be noted Aelian. V. H. ix. 16, 
-who speaks of the centaur Mdpys as the earliest indigenous inhabitant. This 
name ‘‘ Mares” is of course associated with that of the goddess Marica, who was 
honored at Minturnae (which is on Ausonian territory), and who is mentioned by 
Vergil (vii. 47) in connection with Laurentum (cf. Serv., ad Joc.). An archaic 
Latin inscription (CIL, I. 175) shows that her cult also existed at Pesaro. 

2 Strab. v, p. 242 C. 3 Antioch. and Hellan. apud Dion. Hal. i. 22. 


I 


2 ANCIENT ITALY 


shortly, and which is possibly derived from Antiochus, speak of 
the Ausonians and Opicians as one people.* It may be that the 
original text of Hellanicus mentioned these peoples as two branches 
of asingle race, and perhaps the source of Polybius had in mind the 
same idea, especially since it is only the explicit statement of Stra- 
bo that the ancient Syracusan historian held the contrary view that 
prevents our deriving from still another fragment of Antiochus 
that the Opicians and Ausonians were two separate peoples. 
According to the passage in Aristotle alluded to above, the 
Opicians were also called Ausonians and inhabited the regions on 
the side toward the Tyrrhenian Sea. Moreover, they belonged 
to the same Oenotrian race as did the Chones (X@ves), who 
dwelt near the Iapygians in the territory of Siris on the Sallentine 
peninsula. We have additional proof of the exactness of the 
information of Antiochus in the other passages which make men- 
tion of the Ausonians in Campania at Nola and at Sorrento,’ 
and also in the name of the Auruncians, who inhabited the regions 
bordering on the Pomptine marshes, and extending from Terracina 
to Cales and Volturno. That Ausoni and Aurunci are two forms 
of the same name was recognized by Cluverius, and is now generally 
admitted. Even today in the Auruncian territory the name of 
the Ausonians appears in that of the river Ausente and its tributary, 
the Ausentiello, which mingle their waters with those of the Gari- 
gliano not far from the ancient Minturnae. Thus the identity of 
the Ausonians and Auruncians, although it is of aid in better deter- 
mining one of the regions in which the name of this people has been 


 Strab. loc. cit.; Aristot. Polit. vii. (10) 9. 3, p. 1339 Bk. 

2 N@da wédis Adodvwy is the statement attributed to Hecataeus by Stephen of 
Byzantium, s. v. It is true, however, that the extracts from Hecataeus in Stephen 
are often open to suspicion (cf. the well-known fragment concerning Capua), and 
that Callimachus (apud Athen. £p. ii, p. 270, Schw.) alluded explicitly to a falsi- 
fication of the works of Hecataeus. On the other hand, there is no reason for 
believing that the legend of Auson who went from Sorrento to Lipari, and that of 
his sons who occupied the eastern and northern shores of Sicily (see Diod. v. 7; 
cf. Eust. ad Dion. Perieg., vss. 461-67) do not contain elements referring to the 
expansion of the Ausonian race along all of these shores. 

3 Cluverius, Italia Antiqua (Lugduni Batav., 1624’, II, pp 1048 ff.; Nissen, 
Ttal. Landeskunde, II, 2, pp 656 ff. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 3 


preserved, has on the other hand, been an obstacle to the recogni- 
tion of the extent of the region which they occupied. 

An ancient writer informs us that the Ausonians originally 
inhabited the region in which Cales and Beneventum were located ;* 
but an eminent modern critic has denied the historical value of 
this statement, which he says to be of literary origin, and to have 
made its first appearance in the Alexandrine age.? In like 
manner, another prominent critic has asserted that not until the 
Alexandrine age was the term “ Ausonian” used to designate the 
Siculian or Ionian Sea. According to capable modern critics 
also, it was not till this period that the name was applied to a more 
or less extensive portion of the Italian peninsula situated beyond 
the borders of the Auruncian land. We shall see shortly that these 
statements are erroneous. The confusion is in part due to a 
misleading passage in Strabo. After affirming that, although the 
Oscans had disappeared, there still existed traces of them in the 
language which the Romans used under special circumstances, 
Strabo continues as follows: “And although the Ausonians never _ 
dwelt near the Siculian Sea, nevertheless one calls that sea Auso- 
nian.”4 In opposition to this, Strabo himself affirms that Temesa, 
on the border of Bruttium, was originally an Ausonian city.’ 
This coincides with the statement of Cato the Elder, who affirms 
that the Auruncians were at an early period established in the 
territory of Taurianum near the confines of Chalcidian Regium.° 
The presence of the Ausonians on the Ionian coast has recently 
been made certain by the discovery of a fragment of Pindar, in 

t Paul. Ep. Fest , p. 18 M.,s. v. Ausoniam; for Cales see also Dion. Hal. apud 


Steph. Byz., s. v. Kadnoia. Beneventum is possibly the Maddmos which Heca- 
taeus (apud Steph. Byz.) placed in the interior of Oenotria. 

2 Huelsen, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclop., II, 2, col. 2561: “‘ Die Locali- 
sierung des Namens auf die Gegend zwischen Cales und Benevent ist gelehrte 
Erfindung.”’ 

3 Nissen, Ital. Landeskunde, I, p. 95; cf. p. 65, n. 6. 

4Strab. v, p. 232 C.: r&v 8 Adobvwy ob8’ drat olxnodvrwy éml rH Ticeduxyp 
Gaddrry, Td wédXayos Suws Atcdmov kadefrat. 

5 Strab. vi, p. 255 C.: Teuéon ... . Adobvwy xriopua. 

6 Cato apud Prob. in Verg. Buc. et Georg., p. 326, ed. Thilo et Hagen fr. 71, 
Peter. 


4 ANCIENT ITALY 


which the region where Epizephyrian Locri was situated is termed 
Ausonian.* 

The Opician Ausonians had, moreover, occupied Bruttium, 
the modern Calabria. According to Antiochus of Syracuse, the 
Opician Oenotrians had driven the Siculi from Bruttium and 
forced them over to Sicily.2, We have seen that, according to 
Antiochus, the Opician Oenotrians were the same as the Ausonians. 
According to Hellanicus also, the Ausonians invaded southern 
Bruttium and forced the Siculi across to Sicily, and Thucydides, 
probably following Antiochus, as has often been noted, affirmed 
that the Opicians had driven the Siculi from that region.‘ 

On the whole, it is evident that in the fifth century B. c. the 
Ausonians were held to have been the earliest inhabitants on the 
shores of southern Bruttium. The many allusions of Lycophron 
to the Ausonians, when speaking of Scylla and the Strait of 
Messina, and of Petelia and Croton on the Ionian coast, were not 
new literary creations, as certain modern writers have held, but 
merely repeated the early traditions referring to the presence of 
the Ausonians on those shores; and here, as elsewhere, Lycophron 
showed himself a faithful follower of early writers.s 

It does not require many words to show the error of those 
who hold that not until Alexandrine times was the Siculian Sea 
termed Ausonian. The sea in question extended from Sicily to 
the shores of Iapygia and the mouth of the Adriatic, not far from 
the borders of Epirus. We are told expressly by ancient writers 
that the name of Ausonian preceded that of Siculian for this sea,° 
and we have no reason to doubt their statements. The great 
expansion of Sicilian commerce, and the power of Syracuse after 


t Oxyrh. Pap. iii. 408, 586. 

2 Antioch. apud Dion. Hal. i. 22; and apud Strab. vi, p. 257 C. 

3 Hellan. apud Dion. Hal. i. 22. According to Hellanicus, the Ausonians 
were driven over to Sicily on account of the invasion of the Iapygians. 

4 Thue. vi. 2. 4. 5 Lycophr. Alex., vss. 44, 922. 

6 Strab. ii, p. 123 C., says expressly: 7d Adodnov perv wddat, viv 5& Kaobpevor 
Lexehexdy (i. e., wéAaryos); cf. ii, p. 128 C.; vii, p. 324 C.; Polyb. apud Plin. N. H. 
iii. 75; #bid., 14.95: ‘“‘in tres sinus recedens Ausoni maris, quoniam Ausones tenuere 
primi;” cf. bid., 151; xiv. 69; Eustach. ad Dion. Perieg., vs. 78. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 5 


the beginning of the fifth century, explain very well why the sea 
between Greece and Sicily should be termed Siculian. It is also 
easy to understand why this new name superseded that of Ausonian, 
which had been given the sea on account of the ancient Ausonian 
inhabitants of its shores. That the Ausonians really dwelt there 
is shown not only by the statement of Ephorus, according to whom 
they were driven from their homes by the Iapygians, but also by 
the recently quoted passage from Aristotle. According to this 
passage, which agrees perfectly with the statements of Antiochus 
and was probably derived from him, both the Chones, who inhab- 
ited the territory of Siris on the Tarentine gulf, and the Opician 
Ausonians, whom we have already found in Bruttium, in Campania, 
and near the Pomptine marshes, were of Oenotrian descent, and 
belonged to the same people to whom Italus gave his laws.* 
Lycophron, however, does not limit himself to giving the name 
of Ausonian to the region situated on the shores of the Siculian 
or Ionian Sea, and to that occupied by Campania. He also men- 
tions the Ausonians in connection with Daunia and the myth of 
Diomede.? It does not seem that we should regard this as an inno- 
vation of the Alexandrine poet. The best proof that in this case 
also he followed early sources is given by a passage in Pseudo-Scylax, 
where, after speaking of the Iapygians who inhabited the region 
between the Tarentine peninsula and Mount Orion or Garganus, 
reference is made to the neighboring Samnites. The Samnites 
occupied the territory extending from Mount Garganus to the 
land of the Umbrians and to Ancona. Among them the Greek 
historian records five peoples: the Laterni, Opici, Cramones, 
Boreontini, and Peucetii ($15). Few passages have been so 
maltreated by critics at this. The fact that certain of the peoples 
mentioned are unknown has led to attempts to amend the text by 
various conjectures, and the mention of the Opicians as dwelling 
toward the Adriatic has led to strange errors. Critics have over- 
t Aristot. Polit. vii. (10) 9. 3, p- 1339 Bk.: olkouvy d€ 7d wév pds Thy Pipanntae 


"Orixol kal wpdérepov Kal vOv xadobpevan Thy érwruulav Aicoves, 7d 5é pds Thy ‘TraNlapv 
kal tov 'Iénov XGves Thy xadovpévyny Lip - oa 5é cal Xdves Olvorpol 7d yévos. 


2 Lycophr., Alex., vss. 593,.615, 1047. 


6 ANCIENT ITALY 


looked the fact that the author had already described the Tyrrhe- 
nian shores, having at that time made mention of the Campanians 
and Samnites (§§10, 11), and have wrongly supposed that he 
here describes peoples inhabiting the Mediterranean side of the 
peninsula. The truth is that Pseudo-Scylax was describing a 
circumnavigation and mentioned only the peoples on the coast, 
not those in the interior; and among the peoples inhabiting the 
plains or the mountains near the Adriatic coast, between Mount 
Garganus and Ancona, must be sought the five above-mentioned 
tribes, who spoke five different dialects. Of the Laterni and 
Cramones we know nothing. The Boreontini probably inhabited 
certain of the mountains, which in that region often reach to the 
sea. The Peucetii were evidently the inhabitants of Picenum and 
Asculum, names which reappear in those of the Peucetii and of 
Asculum in Apulia. The name of the Opicians indicates clearly 
that, just as the Samnites had established themselves on the Adriatic 
and Tyrrhenian shores, so the Opicians had settled in the neigh- 
borhood of both seas. In like manner we find traces of Luca- 
nians and Daunians on both shores.* . 

We have already noted that in the country of the Auruncians, 
not far from Minturnae, the modern names of the Ausente and 
Ausentiello recall the ancient Opician Ausonians, who were among 

t Pseud.-Scyl., vs. 15: Zavvirar év 5é robrw T@ ver yAGooa Fro orduara 
rdde* Aarépviot, "Omixol, Kpduoves, Bopeovrivor, Ievxerce’s. Miiller, G. G. M., 
I, p. 24, gives extracts from the comments of Niebuhr, Grotefend, and Mommsen. 
In the Aarépyoc some recognize the Leuterni of the Sallentine peninsula, or of 
Liternum in Campania. The name is unknown to me. By way of conjecture we 
might read ’Arépyor, and think of the people dwelling near the Aternus; but this 
is purely hypothetical. The "Om.cof have suggested the strange correction to 
*Amovdol. Without reason the Kpdpoves have been brought into relation with the 
Samnite Kapaxjvor of Ptol. iii. 1. 58. The name of the Bopeovrivo. (which 
recalls the form Bopelyovo. which Lycophr. Alex., vs. 1253 applies to the abori- 
gines of the Abruzzi, the modern Borini, and which signifies ‘mountain people’’) 
has been emended by Grotefend and Niebuhr to Bpevreoivo.. Through a mis- 
understanding of this passage in Pseudo-Scylax, Niebuhr supposes that it was out 
of place, although it is really in its proper position. And through a like misunder- 
standing Mommsen was obliged to suppose that the author was alluding to the 


Opicians of Campania, and to Liternum or Linternum, or to Nuceria Alfaterna of 
that same region. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS y | 


the first to occupy these regions in historic times. It may be noted 
that even today not far from the ancient Sagrus (the modern San- 
gro), and parallel to it, flows the river Osento, which takes its 
origin in the mountains of Atessa and empties into the Adriatic 
not far from the modern Torino di Sangro. ‘“Osento” is evidently 
a contracted form of “ Ausento,” and we have proof of the existence 
of the Opician Ausonians on the Adriatic as well as on the Tyrrhe- 
nian shores. ‘There is, however, evidence for the modern name of 
Ausente in more than this one region. According to a most 
credible statement of Verrius Flaccus, the Ausonians originally 
occupied the inland region of the Apennines where Cales and 
Beneventum are located today. If we examine on a map the 
region lying between Beneventum, on the one hand, and Mount 
Vultur and the borders of ancient Daunia, on the other, not far 
from ancient Aquilonia (Lacedonia) we come upon the river 
Laosento, which flows into the Aufidus on the slopes of Mount 
Vultur before reaching the Adriatic. The form “ Lausento”’ stands 
in the same relation to “Osento” and to ‘“Ausente” as that of 
the neighboring “ Lacedonia” stands to the ancient “ Aquilonia.” 
In like manner, in various regions of southern Italy the form “ La- 
vella” bears the same relation to “Avella” as the modern name of 
“TLamone” in Romagna to the ancient “Anemum.” Not far 
from Monteverde, near the Lausento or Ausento, there still exist 
traces of Cyclopaean walls—a fact, however, which has little 
bearing on the ethnical side of our problem. Of more importance 
are the mention of the Adriatic Opicians in Pseudo-Scylax, and 
the evidence of the two rivers Osento and Ausento, both of which 
facts make it more than probable that here as elsewhere Lycophron 
echoed faithfully the early traditions which located the Ausonians 
on the shores of Daunia. With the statement of Lycophron, more- 
over, agrees the passage in Appian to the effect that Sipontum in 
Daunia was termed an Ausonian city." 

We have already noticed that, according to Hellanicus, the 
Iapygians drove the Ausonians from their territory.” It is quite 


t App. B. C. v. 56. From the context of the two following chapters it would 
seem that Appian also located Thurii and Consentia in Ausonia. 


2 Hellan. apud Dion. Hal. i. 22. 


8 ANCIENT ITALY 


possible that this may have happened in Daunia as well as in 
Bruttium. According to Ephorus, as quoted by Strabo, the Iapy- 
gians dwelt near Croton.t It may be suspected that Ephorus 
derived this from the tov "larruyiwv dxpat tpeis, or from the 
three promontories of the Iapygians which were situated near the 
famous Italiot city.2 If that is true, Ephorus acted after the 
manner of modern critics, and in default of historical evidence 
resorted to reconstructive arguments. It does not follow that he 
was wrong in so doing. Through similar means modern criticism 
often arrives at the truth. It is worthy of note that Pseudo-Scym- 
nus, whose contact with Ephorus is well known, also locates the 
Oenotrians between Croton, the Iapygians, and Brindisi, and that 
his statements correspond to other data which rest on the authority 
of Hecataeus and Strabo. Certainly there was a time when the 
name of Ausonia was applied to a large portion of southern Italy; 
and quite possibly Verrius Flaccus drew from the ancient authors 
who had spoken of such an extension, when he wrote that Ausonia 
was originally the portion of Italy where Cales and Beneventum 
were located, and that the name was gradually extended to apply 
to the entire portion of the peninsula which was bordered by the 
Apennines.‘ 

t Ephor. apud Strab. vi, p. 262 C. 2 Strab. vi, p. 261 C. 

3 Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 363. 

4Paul. Ep. Fest., p. 18 M., s. v.: “Ausoniam appellavit Auson, Ulixis et 
Calypsus filius, eam primam partem Italiae, in qua sunt urbes Beneventum et Cales; 
deinde paulatim tota quoque Italia quae Apennino finitur, dicta est Ausonia ab 
eodem duce, a quo conditam fuisse Auruncam etiam ferunt.”” Cf. Lycophr. Alex., 
vs. 702, where there is a reference to Mount Ades, from which flowed all of the 
streams and fountains which watered the Ausonian territory. According to the 
commentators (see the excellent edition of E. Ciaceri [Catania, 1901], p. 238), the 
Ades is the same as the Apennines; cf. Polyb. iii. 110; Cic. De orat. iii. 19. 69; 
Lucan. ii. 403 ff. 

Besides the cities of the Auruncan region, and besides Cales and Beneventum, 
the names of three other Ausonian cities have come down to us; i. e., Maudxpiva, 
Beoxla, and Iéda (Steph. Byz., s. vv.). The first is entirely unknown to us, and 
possibly here, as elsewhere in Stephen, the name is corrupt. Perhaps Maudxpeva 
is the Maxpiva spoken of by Strabo (v, p- 251 C.), who, however, calls it a Tup- 
pnvdy xricua olkobpevory rd Zavurdy. Possibly we have to deal with a repetition 


of the first syllable similar to that in BéSpuxes (from Sptyes) and Mamers (from 
Mars). In this case it must be that the Oenotrians occupied Marcina near Salerno 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 9 


When, in another passage, Lycophron speaks of Caere in 
Etruria as a city situated in Ausonia, he is not alone in so doing." 
Neither Verrius Flaccus nor Lycophron expresses personal opinions; 
nor do they represent the result of late literary speculation. This 
is shown by the writings of Antiochus; by the author of the periplus, 

‘known by the name of Scymnus of Chios, who depended, it seems, 
on Apollodorus; and finally by the annalistic sources of Livy and 
Dionysius. From the statements of Livy we learn with all cer- 
tainty that within historic times the Ausonians not only occupied 
the region more specifically termed Auruncian, which extended 
from the Pomptine marshes to Mount Massicus and to the extinct 
volcano of Rocca Monfina, but they that extended as far as Cales.? 
Pseudo-Scymnus has occasion to speak twice of the Ausonians. 
In one place he says that they inhabited the inland region closely 
adjoining the territory of the Latins. The second time he speaks 
of them as dwelling beside the Samnites, who occupied the southern 
shores of Campania, and who lived, therefore, in the regions bord- 
ering on the territory of Benevetum.’ A careful interpretation 


before the Etruscans. Beoxla is the same as the Vescia which Livy (viii. 11. 
9, 25) calls a city of the Ausonians. IIéda is the Latin Pedum. 

1 Lycophr. Alex., vs. 1355- 

2 According to the tradition in Livy (ii. 8), about 504 B.c., the Auruncians 
occupied Pometia and Cora, taking them from the Latins, and in 495 they pushed 
almost as far as Aricia (ii. 26). In 337 they occupied Suessa Aurunca (viii. 15), 
at which time they also took Cales, which is called Ausonian (‘‘ea gens Cales urbem 
incolebat,”’ viii. 16). In 314 the Ausonians captured and destroyed Minturnae 
and Vescia, the cities of Auson, and Livy (ix. 25) adds on this occasion: “delataque 
Ausonum gens.” According to Roman tradition, the Ausonians were gradually 
driven back, on the one hand by the Latins, on the other by the Samnites (cf. Livy, 
ix. 25), and this in general corresponds to the truth. 

3 Pseud.-Scymn..,vss. 228 ff , after having mentioned Latinus, son of Ulysses and 
Circe, says: Atcovés re werbyeov rérov | €xovres Atowy obs cuvorxloa Soxe? ‘Oduc- 
géws mais kal Kadupots yevéuevos; and then again, after having spoken of Cumae 
and Neapolis in Campania, he recalls the Samnites (cf. Pseud.-Scyl., vss. ro, 
11), mapoixota’ éxduevoe TGv Adodvywy (vss. 244 ff.), by which perhaps he alludes 
both to the Ausonians of Nola and to the population which was pressing into the 
interior of the Samnite territory. In like manner, shortly afterward (vs. 246) 
Pseudo-Scymnus mentions the Oenotrians who inhabited the inland district behind 
Posidonia (Paestum). Both Verrius Flaccus and Pseudo-Scymnus, in giving the 
well-known legend referring to Auson, son of Circe, and to Calypso (cf. above, and 


10 ANCIENT ITALY 


of the fragments of Antiochus, as compared with the passages from 
Hellanicus, Thucydides, and, above all, Aristotle, who, according 
to the majority of critics, derived his material from Antiochus 
himself, shows that, according to this writer, and, indeed, according 
to all the historians of the fifth century B. c., the Opician Ausonians 
once occupied the entire region of Italy situated between the Ionian 
Sea and the shores of Bruttium, on the one hand, and the Tyrrhe- 
nian Sea, on the other. Ausonia itself however, as is expressly 
stated by Verrius Flaccus, was that region of Italy which was 
bounded by the Apennines; and with this fact in mind one better 
understands the numerous passages in Vergil alluding to Ausonia 
and the Ausonians. 

According to the opinion which is today generally accepted 
and defended by the best critics, Vergil, on a par with other writers 
of the Alexandrine period, by the use of poetic license applied the 
words “ Ausonia” and ‘“‘Ausonians”’ to regions which that people 
never inhabited. Latium for example he called Ausonia, and the 
indigenous inhabitants of that region, against whom Aeneas had 
to contend, he termed Ausonians. In Vergil the Tiber is Ausonian,. 
and so is the spear which killed the Greek Pallas. The Rutulian 
Turnus, too, is called Ausonian, and all of the Rutulians and Latins 
are held to be of that race.* Both ancient and modern critics 
agree that, instead of giving his fancy free rein in illustrating the 
early myths, Vergil generally followed very closely the ancient 
traditions. That the present instance is no exception, and that 
Vergil followed Lycophron, is shown by a passage in Aristotle 


also the other passages relating to this in the article by Procksch on Auson in Roscher, 
I, 1, col. 734), cause us to wonder in what region this legend originated. It is pos- 
sible, however, to apply it either to the shores of the Ausonian or Siculian Sea, or to 
those of Campania. In favor of the first hypothesis may be mentioned the fact that 
Pseudo-Scylax, vs. 13, and the source of Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 57, place the island of 
Calypso near Croton; cf. Plin. N. H. iii. 96. In regard to Campania, according 
to some writers Calypso was worshiped near Lake Avernus (Dio. Cass. 48. 50). 
Of the two hypotheses the first seems preferable. 

* For the Tiber as Ausonian see Aen. v. 83; Turnus, xii. 183; the Rutulians, 
xii. 447, cf. xi. 41; Latium and the Latin cities, iv. 236; vii. 39, 55, 105, 198, 537, 
547, 623; vili. 328; ix. 99, 639; x. 268; xi. 253; cf. iii. 171, 378, 385, 477; iv. 349; 
vi. 346; x. 54; in a more general sense, Georg. ii. 385. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS II 


which we know through Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In discuss- 
ing the beginnings of Rome, Dionysius gives under the name 
of the Greek philosopher a tradition, according to which certain 
Greeks, on their way home from the Trojan war, were driven to a 
place in Opicia termed Latinion, situated on the shores of the 
Tyrrhenian Sea. Probably in this case also Aristotle followed Antio- 
chus,' or at any rate followed an author who agreed perfectly 
with him. According to the source of Aristotle, this Latium on 
the Tyrrhenian coast formed part of the region occupied by the 
Opicians. According to Antiochus, the Opician Ausonians of 
southern Bruttium had pushed as far as the Tyrrhenian Sea, 
and Latium was included in their territory. And that these two 
writers were not alone in affirming this, we learn from the source 
of Lydus, from Stephen of Byzantium, and from a valuable passage 
in Cato the Elder. Lydus, in addition to certain false and remark- 
able statements, often gives information derived from ancient sources 
which had fallen into disuse, and in one such passage he states 
expressly that Laurentum was in ancient times termed a city of 
the Opicians.? Stephen declares the Latin Pedum to have been 
an Ausonian city. Cato protests vigorously against those Greeks 
who, to offend the Romans, call them Opicians.4 Evidently, 
therefore, we have to deal, not with isolated passages, but with a 
well-established tradition, according to which Latium formed a 
part of the territory occupied by the Opicians.’ And since Antio- 

I Ateink soad Dion. Hal. i. 72: deity els rv rérov Tobrov ris ’Omixis ds 
kadelrac Aarimov éml r@ Tuppnux@ meddye xeiwevos. For the myth cf. Heracl. 


apud Sol. i. 2; Fest., s. v. Romam, p. 269 M.; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 6; Serv. in 
Aen. i. 273. There is no need of changing Aarimoy to Aaoulmov as Kiessling does. 

2 Toh. Lyd. De mens. i. 13. Aeneas was driven év réde rijs "Iradias deyouévy 
Aavpevtia, fv cal ’Omcxhv pacw dvouacOjval more, é fs Kal drmexlfev Kal (ws 7d 
TrH00s) dpgixlfev 7rd BapBapitey Iradol Aéyovo.v. This dpgixifery mentioned by 
the source of Lydus should be compared with the statement of Steph. Byz., s. v.: 
*Omckol €0vos IraNias ... . of 5¢ Oguxol awd ray Sdewr. 

3 Steph. Byz., s. v. Iééa. 


4 Cato apud Plin. N. H. xxix. 14: ‘nos quoque diclitant barbaros et spurcius 
nos quam alios Opicon [i. e., ’Omixdv] appellatione foedant.” 

5 That the Opicians in ancient times occupied territory bordering on Latium 
(i. e., the valley of the Trerus and that of the middle Liris) we learn from a frag- 


12 ANCIENT ITALY 


chus, the earliest and most authoritative source in such questions, 
states that the Opicians were termed Ausonians, it follows that 
in this case also Vergil displayed his customary fidelity in follow- 
ing ancient literary tradition. 


II 


It now remains to discover from what country the Ausonians 
originally came, and in what way they were able gradually to spread 
themselves over all of southern Italy. There are two traditions 
referring to this question, one of which maintains that the Oenotrian- 
Opician Ausonians moved from the south toward the north, while 
the other holds that the Ausonians descended from the region in 
which Cales and Beneventum were situated, and conquered all of 
Italy as far as the Apennines. The first of these traditions is 
represented by Antiochus; the second, by Verrius Flaccus. Accord- 
ing to Antiochus, as we have seen, the Opician Ausonians were one 
of the two main branches of the great Oenotrian race, and inhabited 
the Tyrrhenian side of the peninsula. The other branch, on the 
other hand, the Chones, occupied the territory of Siris bordering 
on Japygia. A comparison of the name of the Chones in Italy 
with that of the Chaones in Epirus, and also of various other local 
names found in both regions, suggests rather an Epirot than an 
Italic origin. Acheruntia and Pandosia are purely Chaonic 
names, and are found in various portions of the region inhabited 
by the Italian Chonian Oenotrians. Moreover, these names, 
which are also of a purely Epirot character, appear not only in 
the territory of Siris, but also in other regions of southern Italy 
which were inhabited by Oenotrians. From a comparison of 
these names we must conclude that the Chones and the peoples 
coming from Epirus occupied, in addition to the Siritis, others 
of the regions which were inhabited by the Oenotrian tribes." 


ment of Dion. Hal. apud Steph. Byz., s. v.: @péyeddXa words “IraXlas, 7d per 
dpxaiov hy’ Omixdv &reara OvodovcKwy eyévero. 


t Pandosia and Acheruntia, names characteristic of the Epirot Chaonia, are 
found in the heart of Bruttium, in the valley of the Crathis (near modern Cosenza), 
where Alexander of Epirus perished (see e. g., Strab. vii, p. 324 C). In the Siritis 
we also have a city named Pandosia, near Heraclea (see Kaibel, J. G. S. 1. 645, 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 13 


However, although this Epirote emigration was very important, it 
could not possibly alone have furnished the entire population of 
southern Italy in ancient times. Without doubt there were numer- 
ous early invasions of peoples from the north, similar to those which 
throughout historic times have influenced the history of the south- 
ern regions of the peninsula. For this reason there is probably 
some truth in the statement of Verrius Flaccus to the effect that 
the Ausonians conquered all of Italy as far as the Apennines, 
starting out from the region where Cales and Beneventum were 
situated. . 

We shall, perhaps, more easily attain the desired solution of 
our problem if we examine the statements of ancient writers on 
the subject from a political as well as from an ethnographical 
point of view. By neglecting this, modern critics have often 
lost their way amid the intricate by-ways of Italic origins. Antio- 
chus informs us that the earliest inhabitants of Italy were the 
Oenotrians, who originally inhabited the region extending from 
the southern part of Bruttium on the Strait of Messina, to the 
Napetine (S. Euphemia) and Scylacine Gulfs. Italus became 
their leader, and from him the Oenotrians took their new name. 
He transformed his followers from shepherds to tillers of the 
soil, and gave them good laws and precepts for their mutual 
intercourse. He was succeeded by Morges, under whom the 
Oenotrians, who under Italus were termed Italians, were called 
Morgetians. Under Morges the name of Italy was extended to 
apply to the region along the Tyrrhenian coast as far as Posidonia 
(Paestum), and along the Ionian or Ausonian Sea as far as Tar- 
entum. When an old man, Morges gave shelter to an exile 
I, 12) not far from the river Aciris. A third Acheruntia (the present Acerenza) 
was situated near Venusia, in the territory whose fons Bandusiae (Pandosia) was 
made famous by Horace. Other Acheruntiae are known near Croton (see Nova 
Tactica, 1791, ed. Gelzer; possibly near the present site of Cerentia Antica) and 
near the Alburno in the valley of the Tanager in eastern Lucania (see An. Rav., 
IV, 34; cf. Tab. Peut. and CIL, X, p. 2). Finally, the name of Acherusia appears 
on the Campanian coast as applied to the well-known marsh near Cumae. In this, 
however, we probably have not a local name, but a localization of the necromantic 


myths of Thesprotia. The same holds for the sacrarium of Albunea near Tivoli 
(cf. Verg. Aen. vii. 81 ff.). 


14 ANCIENT ITALY 


from Rome by the name of Siculus. This Siculus caused dis- 
sension among the Oenotrian people, and his followers, called after 
him Siculi, were forced by the Opicians and Ausonians to abandon 
Italy (i. e., southern Bruttium), and betook themselves to the 
neighboring island, which was named Sicily after them." 

At first sight it would seem that Antiochus was referring to 
the emigration of peoples of a different race. He says that Italus 
was of Oecnotrian descent, and, according to Aristotle, he made 
the same statement in regard to the Chones. A close examination 
of such statements, however, shows that he was alluding to the 
political development of these peoples, and to the formation and 
subsequent expansion of the empire of the Oenotrians under 
the rule of Italus, Morges, and Siculus, who created the states 
of the Itali, Morgeti, and Siculi. The small state of the Ital, 
which at first occupied southern Bruttium, was gradually extended 
to form the larger Oenotrian state, and ended by embracing all of 
southern Italy as far as Paestum and Tarentum. With this politi- 
cal concept correspond the statements regarding the laws of the 
wise King Italus, who introduced agriculture and the practice of 
eating together from a common mess. The reference to the 
yévos, however, has only a secondary value as compared with the 
political fact which makes the account of especial significance. The 


t Antioch. apud Dion. Hal. i. 12, 22, 35, 73; Strab. iv, pp. 253f., 257 C.; 
cf. Arist. Pol. vii. 9. (10), p. 1339 Bk. Antiochus says that the names of Italia and 
Ttali were at first restricted to the country and inhabitants of the region évrés the 
Napetine and Scylacine gulfs. The following reference to the extension of such 
names to the shores (mwapd\wos) of Tarentum and Posidonia shows that évrés 
cannot be taken in the sense of referring to the region comprised between the two 
gulfs (i.e., merely the region in which Cantanzaro and Tiriolo are situated), but that 
it refers to the territory beyond, and comprises all of southern Bruttium from 
Regium and Locri as far as Terina and Scylax. The successive extension of the 
name and realm of Italus and Morges as far as Tarentum on the one side, and 
Posidonia on the other, shows clearly that this is the only possible explanation. 
When Aristotle, in speaking of the original state of King Italus, refers to the Adyoe 
T@y éxe? xaroixovvrwr, he has in mind either Hippys of Regium or Antiochus of 
Syracuse, or some other Siceliot or Italiot historian. Whether Antiochus is correct 
in affirming that the name “‘Italia” arose in southern Bruttium is another question. 
Certainly the evidence of this author cannot be quoted in favor of the view that the 
name originated in Lucania, as has been done by certain Italian scholars whose 
writings on the subject contain many strange errors. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS I5 


yévos serves to bring together different peoples and to unite them 
with a political yoke. Italus was an Oenotrian, just as the two 
brothers Oenotrius and Peucetius, according to Pherecydes, a 
fifth-century writer, were sons of Pelasgus, who left Arcadia and 
founded in Italy the two peoples of like name.‘ In reality, in 
Peucetius and the Peucetians we have a Greek form derived from 
mevKos, “pine.” The Romans followed another etymology, 
calling them Poediculi. This would make them the same as the 
Piceni, who did not derive their name. from the pine or 7evdKos, 
but from the bird which they called the picus. The derivation 
of the Peucetians from Arcadia is, however, the result of Greek 
literary and political speculation. Their relationship with the 
Oenotrians is derived from the fact that they originally occupied 
Apulia, and that even later they inhabited the regions bordering 
on Peucetia.2 The Greek genealogy serves to unite peoples of 
different race which are joined for topographical and political 
reasons. ‘Thus, at a later period, the Tarentines called themselves 
brothers of the Samnites and of the Calabrians. For like reasons 
even the Sabines were connected with the Spartans; and as a 
result of similar speculation the Celtic Aedui were held to be related 
to the Roman people. According to Antiochus, Italus was an Oeno- 
trian. In reality, the name of the Oenotrians and that of Oenotria 
has no clear and distinct significance from an ethical standpoint, 
as is manifestly affirmed by Pseudo-Scymnus when he says: 
7 8 Iradia rpocexns pev éor’ Oivwtpia 
puyadas Td mporepov Tis éoxe BapBapovs 
a6 Tod duvacrevovros “ItaXod Tovvopa 
Aa Botca.4 
This noteworthy passage may be derived indirectly from Antio- 
t Pherecyd. apud Dion. Hal. i. 13; cf. Paus. viii. 3. 5. 
2 Hecat. apud Steph. Byz., s. v.: ITevxrlavres @@vos rots Olvwrpors rpocexés ; 
cf. Pseud.-Scym., vs. 363, and Strab. vi, p. 265 C. 


3 The fictitious and political character of the relationship between the Taren- 
tines and the Pitanatian Samnites was known to Strabo v, p. 250 C. For the 
Calabrians and Tarentum see the passages quoted in my Storia della Sicilia, 
etcs. 1, .ps 014; 

4 Vss. 300 ff. 


16 ANCIENT ITALY 


chus, or it may be a late echo from some logographer of the fifth 
century. At any rate, it forms a useful complement to the state- 
ments of the ancient Syracusan historian.’ It tells how Italus 
became the leader of a rough people of mixed descent (SapBapor 
puydees), which agrees perfectly with the statement that he civilized 
this people and transformed them from shepherds into tillers of 
the soil. At alater period the Roman consul Popillius, in speaking 
of those who inhabited part of the same region, boasted that he 
had acted in the same manner in regard to the ager publicus.? 
It would seem that the name “Oenotrian” was first applied to 
those regions of Italy where Siris and Croton were located. Later 
it was extended to apply to other portions of southern Italy, endur- 
ing especially along the banks of the Alento, where Phocaean 
Velia was situated, and in the mountainous region about Mount 
Alburnus. It was used to indicate a people, ethnically different 
from the Chones, that came from Epirus and inhabited the Siritis, 
in the same way that the name “Italians” comprised successively 
peoples of different race which were subject to Italus. The same 
observation holds true for the Morgetes. We have shown that 
the generic designation ‘“Ocontrians” was applied to all of these 
peoples, and not to the Opician Ausonians alone. Thus the 


tIt is impossible to determine whether the lines of Pseudo-Scymnus are 
indirectly derived from Antiochus. C. Miiller (ad Joc.) rightly observes that 
Pseudo-Scymnus follows the views of Ephorus, and contrary to Antiochus enu- 
merates Tarentum among the cities of Italy (vss. 330, 361). Probably many 
other writers on Italy in the fifth or fourth century alluded to this legend of King 
Italus. 

2CIL, X, 6950, 13: “primus fecei ut de agro poblico aratoribus cederent 
paastores.” 

3 Pandosia on the Crathis was the ancient seat of the Oenotrian kings, and 
figures as a city of importance even later, at the time of the war of Alexander of 
Epirus against the Brettians: Strab. iv, p. 256C.; cf. the coins from the fifth 
century showing an alliance with Croton (Head, Hist. num., p. 89). The name of 
Pandosia would lead us to consider the Pandosia of the Chones in the Siritis 
purely Oenotrian. This was called by Aristotle (Pol. vii. 9. (10), p. 1329 Bk. 
Olvwrpol 7d yévos, and by Strabo (vi, p. 255 C.) Olvwrpexdy e6vos, although 
Strabo elsewhere (vi, p. 253 C) names the XG@vas kal rods Olvwrpovs, as allied, 
but distinct, peoples. Some of the Oenotrian cities mentioned by Stephen of 
Byzantium, on the authority of Hecataeus, seem to have been located in the region 
above Croton where Pandosia and Acheruntia were situated. The name of ’Apiv6y 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 17 


examination of the earliest references to the first inhabitants of 
Italy leads to results similar to those reached by students of the 
biological sciences when, in seeking for the embryos and lowest 
organisms, they discover that even these are aggregations of various 
elements which demand further analysis and subdivision. In 
reality, Oenotria was occupied by the peoples that had crossed the 
sea from Epirus, and by others that had come to southern Italy 
from the north and from the Apennines. 

The political and non-ethnographical character of the account 
of Antiochus is likewise shown by the boundaries which he assigns 
to the apyaia “Itad/a, It is true that he mentions Latium in 
connection with the Oenotrian-Opician Ausonians, since he states 
that from that region came Siculus, the successor of Morges, and 
founder of the race of Siculi in southern Bruttium and Sicily. 
The boundaries of ancient Italy, however, he fixes at Posidonia 
and Tarentum. ‘Tarentum was just as much Greek as were the 


(cf. s. v. "ApidvOn) rods Olywrpdv év weooyala (Steph. Byz., s. v.) seems to have 
come down in that of the modern Arente, a confluent of the upper Crathis. 
Mevextyy (cf. s. v. Iédés) is identified by Calabrian writers as the locality today 
called Mendicino. 

Unfortunately, we are unable to determine the location of Bpvoraxla (the 
Aprustani of Pliny ?), “Epiwov, Kurépiov, Nivaca, and Kéooa, which Stephen, refer- 
ring to Hecataeus, places in the interior of Oenotria, as well as that of IHazvuxés, 
ZiBepnvj (Siderno ?), and Zéoriov, which Stephen also terms Oenotrian cities 
without giving his source. Worthy of note is the name of Maddmos, according to 
Hecataeus a modus pecoyelas Twv Olywrp&v, because it reminds us of the Malies 
of the coins of the Campanian type which some attribute to Maleventum or Bene- 
ventum, and of the passage in Verrius Flaccus which located the Ausonians at 
Beneventum. 

Velia too is said by Herodotus (i. 167) to be in Oenotria, and it is of interest 
to observe that, just as near Mount Alburnus there is mention of Aceronia, so 
opposite Velia were the Insulae Oenotrides (Strab. vi, pp. 252 C. extr., 258 C.), in 
the name of which Pliny (N. H. iii. 85) had already seen an “‘argumentum pos- 
sessae ab Oenotris Italiae.” 

In Stephen (s. v.) among the cities of the Oenotrians is that of IIvés, which 
may possibly be the same IIvfous wé\s ZixeNas or Buxentum which is mentioned 
immediately afterward. (See below, chapter xxi, for the meaning of méds 
Zixedlas.) Also “Apreulowv, which Stephen cites on the authority of Philistus, 
is called a city of the Oenotrians év wecoyelg. We should expect to find a place on 
the coast, although it is quite possible that Greek cults penetrated into the inte- 
rior. This occurred, for example, at Oenotrian Pandosia, and the coins show the 
existence of the cult of the Argive Juno. 


18 ANCIENT ITALY 


neighboring Achaean and Chalcidaean cities, and was probably 
excluded from Italy by Antiochus on account of its struggles with 
the Achaean cities, and especially with the purely Greek Thurii, 
for the possession of the Siritis. | On the other hand, we know that 
after Tarentum had captured the Siritis, it located at Heraclea 
the center of the league of Italiot cities. We know also that 
Tarentum was considered an Italiot city by other ancient writers,” 
and it follows that Antiochus was writing from a political standpoint. 
If he made Italy extend only as far as Posidonia (Paestum) on 
the Tyrrhenian side, this is explained by the fact that about a 
century before his time the Etruscans had conquered a great por- 
tion of Campania, and had pushed as far as Salernum and the 
neighboring plain watered by the Silarus, which bordered the 
territory of Posidonia on the north. The variety of the ethno- 
graphical elements comprised under the general name of Oeno- 
trians, and the political reasons which inspired the account of 
Antiochus referring to the origin of the name J¢alia, prevent our 
affirming that the Opician Ausonians took their origin in southern 
Bruttium. More worthy of credence is the statement of Verrius 
Flaccus to the effect that the region of Cales and Beneventum was 
the starting-point of this people; although it is probable that, 
instead of being the place where the Ausonian race was created 
and whence it took its departure, it should be considered as the 
most northern point which had come to the knowledge of Verrius. 
We are unable to decide whether in the above instance the writer 
expressed the result of his own personal investigations, or whether 
he followed ancient historical sources. Nor can we decide whether 
traces of the Ausonian element near Cales and Beneventum led 
him to his conclusions, or whether at his time the Ansonians had 
entirely disappeared from that region, just as, according to Livy, 
they had been wholly destroyed in the region of the Auruncians.4 


t Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 254 C., and Dion. Hal. i. 73. 
2 Strab. vi, p. 280 C. extr. 
3 See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 530 ff. 


4 The statement of Livy in this connection is explicit, ix. 25. 9 (314 B. C.): 
“‘deletaque Ausonum gens.” 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 19 


In case he drew from others, it may have been from Cato the Elder, 
or some other Latin source; or it may have been from some Greek, 
and possibly Campanian, writer. 

At any rate, the Osco-Ausonian element which we have found 
on both the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian sides of the peninsula 
represents a very ancient stratum which was anterior to the inva- 
sions of the Iapygians, Etruscans, and Samnites.t Along the 
Adriatic coast the Opician Ausonians gave way before the Iapy- 
gian invasion, just as in Latium they were overcome, and in part 
destroyed, by the Etruscans, and later by the Sabines, who in the 
fifth century gained possession of Latium. The Auruncian or 
Ausonian inhabitants of the region situated between the Pomptine 
marshes and the Volturnus met a like fate at the hands of the Sam- 
nites, who in the fifth century gained possession of central Italy 
and overran the whole of the South. The same thing also occurred 
in the plain of Vesuvius, where first the Etruscans, and later the 
Samnite Campanians, oppressed the Opician Ausonian people. 
Even before this time, and certainly before Herodotus and Antio- 
chus, the Italian peoples that had experienced the Sabine invasions, 
caused to be forgotten the ancient names and tribes of the Oeno- 
trians, Ausonians, Morgetians, and Chonians.? But while in 
central Italy the name of the Ausonians long survived in the form 
of the Auruncians, and while on the borders of Latium, in Cam- 
pania, and along the Adriatic coast, traces remained of the name 
of the Opicians, a different fate befell the Ausonians in southern 
Italy, who were either entirely destroyed or absorbed. We thus 
understand how Strabo, who drew from his sources the mention 
of the foundation of Temesa by the Ausonians at a time even earlier 
than Greek colonization, could have affirmed that the Ausonians 

1 For the Iapygians on the Adriatic coast on the borders of Umbria see Tab. 


Iguv., V1 b, 54, 58; Vila, 12, 48; cf.in Plin. N. H. iii. 113 the Dolates Salentini 
in the Sixth Region, or Umbria. 


2Strab. vi, p. 253 C: mpl» 5& rods “EXAqvas éeiv ob5’ Rodv ww Aevxavol - 
Xdves 6é xal Olvwrpol rods rémous évéuovro, Tav 6¢ Lavutadyv avinbévrwy emt word 
kal rods X@vas cal rods Olvwrpods éxBardvrwyv Aevxavots 5’ eis Thy peplda ra’rny 
dmroxnodvrwy + + + + wb\uv yxpovov érodéuouv of te “EXAnves Kal BdpBapor mpds 
adANXous. 


20 ANCIENT ITALY 


had never inhabited the shores of the Ionian Sea, and yet have 
repeated the statement that at one time the Siculian Sea was 
termed Ausonian. 
III 

The above results have been reached by a study of ancient 
literary tradition. If we desire to consider our problem from every 
point of view, we must call to our aid the study of languages, of 
primitive archaeology, of toponomy, and of anthropology. The 
anthropologists, however, although they have made noteworthy 
progress in their investigations, are not yet able to furnish entirely 
trustworthy and final data. Even though we follow with the great- 
est sympathy and interest the results of craniological and somato- 
logical research, and recognize that certain of the hypotheses evolved 
are deserving of the most attentive consideration, we must 
nevertheless admit that the results are not yet mature, and that the 
work is not always conducted with unity of purpose. We must, 
therefore, observe caution in our consideration of the series of 
more or less ingenious and probable theories which have succeeded 
one another during the past few decades, and which, after attract- 
ing their share of attention from scientists, have easily made way 
for new, and often opposing, hypotheses, much in the way that 
one fashion is succeeded by another in other branches of human 
activity, such as in the use of garments and domestic utensils, 
and in social usage and ceremonies. Very little has been done 
toward determining with certainty and exactness the somatological 
and anatomical characteristics of the indigenous peoples in the 
mountainous regions of central Italy—a procedure which will 
some day furnish the key to more than one ethnical problem. 
In the same manner, notwithstanding the marvelous results 
obtained by comparative linguistics, sufficient attention has not 
as yet been paid to the sounds which have endured among the 
various Italian populations. Possibly through some such study 
we may in time be compensated for the scarcity of epigraphic 
material of a really ancient period, and, in part at least, be enabled 
to discover and reconstruct the singularities and affinities which are 
determined by the persistence of early elements of ethical character. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 21 


The archaeological material appears to be much more abundant, 
and the students of primitive archaeology—or, as they call it, 
paleology—have made laudible efforts at solving these difficult 
problems with new material. Certainly much praise is due those 
who have attempted to check, by means of the early archaeological 
material of the peninsula and the neighboring regions, the data 
furnished us by the ancient traditions. An examination of these 
studies, however, does not show that definite results have as yet 
been attained, nor that material has been discovered of such a 
nature as to furnish a foundation for substantial and incontrovert- 
ible conclusions when applied to problems similar to that which 
we have been discussing. The study of primitive archaeology 
has disclosed different burial customs and distinctive forms of 
pottery; but none of the discoveries as yet made has revealed an 
element of strikingly ethnical character. In Italy tombs in which 
the bodies were buried in a crouching position seem to have pre- 
ceded those in which they were stretched out; but this character- 
istic has been noted elsewhere among peoples of different race, 
and it would be hazardous to draw any ethnographical conclusion 
from it. The earliest tombs show evidence of primitive and bar- 
barous customs, such as scraping the flesh from the bones and 
painting the skulls; but analogous customs are found among 
savages in other parts of the globe. The excavations have 
brought to light many thousands of broken vessels, and fragments 
of vases and other utensils; but an examination of the style of such 
objects often shows elementary forms analogous to those which, by 
virtue of the psychological unity of the human mind, are found in 
other regions. When we come to deal with more highly developed 
forms and styles, we have come down to the beginning of history 
and find the key to the accounts of the first commercial relations 
existing between Greece, the islands of the Aegean, Illyricum, 
and Italy. None of the elements hitherto discovered throws 
sufficient light on Italic origins. On the other hand, it has 
been possible to prove that in certain regions of central and 
upper Italy there existed till a late historical period elements 
of ethnographical origin which have not as yet been well de- 


22 ANCIENT ITALY 


fined, and which had long since disappeared in the southern 
regions of the peninsula. 

There is no need of despairing for the future of these researches. 
The results attained from them will be of constantly increasing 
usefulness, and, when aided by strictly philological examinations 
of the texts, by the comparative history of civilization, and by the 
other modern auxiliary sciences, will be of the greatest value to 
the many students of primitive forms. As compared with the pale- 
ological investigations of a few years ago, the achievements of 
modern students of primitive archaeology show as great advances 
as those which separate the various periods of civilization which 
form the object of their studies. Notwithstanding this rapid prog- 
ress, however, due to the greater learning of the younger inves- 
tigators, in this case also we have as yet no incontrovertible data 
which will aid in the solution of our problem. ‘This is partly ow- 
ing to the strong foothold gained by the erroneous theories ad- 
vanced by earlier investigators along this line, in the combating 
and setting-aside of which much valuable time has been lost. 

There remains the study of toponomy, which by its nature is - 
still more closely connected with historical and geographical 
researches. Unfortunately the pursuit of this study also has led 
to grave errors. Although the resemblance of names has at times 
been of assistance in tracing the distribution of various peoples, 
it has more often given occasion for investigations based merely 
on similarity of sounds, on simple homophony, and on elements 
pertaining to different peoples and times. Moreover, while in 
other parts of Europe research along this line has found expert 
advocates, in Italy it is still in its infancy, and its followers have 
many deep-seated prejudices to overcome. There is a lack of 
systematic and complete lists of names, and thus in only a few 
cases is it possible by means of methodical inquiry to establish 
the origin of local names which have survived. In spite of these 
drawbacks, however, and awaiting the day when we shall have more 
material at our disposal, let us now examine a few toponomical 
data which may be of assistance in solving the problem before us.* 


1 For the nature of the problems which may be solved by toponomy, and for 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS : 23 


Students of toponomy long ago discovered that the ancient 
names of rivers and mountains endured much longer than those 
of cities. In the foregoing we have seen how the name of the early 
Ausonians is still preserved in the names of the rivers flowing 
through certain of the regions which were inhabited by the Opician- 
Ausonian race. An analogous phenonemon is presented by the 
river Aufidus, or Oufens, or Ufens, which flows through the Pomp- 
tine marshes on the borders of the Auruncian territory. This 
name is found both in the Aufidus, or Ofanto, of Apulia, and in 
Aufidena in the center of the Abruzzi, the region which was the 
cradle of the Samnite race and bore the same relation to ancient 
Italy as did Arcadia to the other portions of the Peloponnese. 
The same name, moreover, appears in the Aufinium of the Piceni, 
and in the modern Offida in the same region.* Another character- 
istic example is furnished by the name of the Oenotrian Morgetians. 
According to Antiochus, these occupied, together with the Siculi, 
the region in Bruttium where Regium arose, even before that 
city had been founded by the Chalcidians.?. Since Antiochus of 
Syracuse affirms that Morges extended the realm of the Oenotrian 
Morgetians as far as Tarentum, this should be brought into relation 
with the names found on those high, undulating plateaus which 
are separated from the Apennines and, running through Apulia, 
extend as far as the Sallentine plains. Thus the name of Morgia, 
which is found in various points about Mount Garganus—a region 
which has faithfully preserved such ancient names—has probably 
come down from the time of the ancient Morgetians. There is 
probably also an echo of the Oenotrian branch of the Morgetians 
in the name of the regions termed /e Murgie, situated in the upper 
valley of the Sinni (ancient Siris), in the district of Castiglione, 
the necessity of providing a toponomatica] dictionary for the different nations see 


the excellent article of C. Jullian in Beitrage zur alten Geschichte II (1902) e, 1 ff. 


? 


t The name ‘‘Aufidus’’ seems to mean “the foaming,” as does Albinia in 


Etruria (the modern Albegna). 

2 Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 257 C. The Morgetes and Siculi are said to 
have been driven out t7d Olywrp&y, that is, by that portion of the Oenotrians who 
did not follow Siculus, who had made for himself an (Slav dpx7jv and had created 
a division in the €@vos (Antioch. apud Dion. Hal. i. 12; cf. ibid. 22). 


24 ANCIENT ITALY 


where there also flows a Rio le Murgie.t Among all of these ancient 
names which have come down to the present day, the most charact- 
eristic are perhaps those of the Osento and Lausento, already 
noted, since there seems no doubt that they bear the same relation 
to Ausente that Aufidus does to Oufens and Offida. 

It may be worthy of note that a somewhat similar form is found 
in Etruria—a region which, according to Lycophron, was, in part 
at least, comprised in the Ausonian territory. I allude to the 
river Auser which joined the Arnus at Pisa. Moreover, in the 
central Apennines—a region which from a very early period was 
inhabited by the Umbrians—there are two short rivers which are 
still called Ausa. One of these rises in the territory of San Marino, 
and empties near Rimini into the Adriatic. The other descends from 
Bertinoro and, joining the Ronco, likewise empties into the Adriatic 
beyond Forli.2 The forms “ Auser” and ‘“ Ausa”’ should possibly 
be compared with that of ‘“ Ausente,” just as the river Sagrus near 
the Osento is connected with the ancient Sagras which had its 
course in Ausonian territory near Locri. It is even possible that 
another similar parallelism exists between the name of the Umbrian 
river Metaurus and that of the Ausonian Mataurus which flowed 
through the territory of the Tauriani in Bruttium between the Casu- 
entus, or Basuentus, near Metapontum (the Kaca of Bacchylides) 
and the Casuentini of Tuscan Casentino. 

Until the study of Italian toponomical history has made greater 

t Livy (x. 16) mentions a Morgantia in the southern part of the Samnite terri- 
tory near Apulia; cf. Steph. Byz., s. v.: Mopyévriov més "Iradtas dard Mopyjrwr * 
Aéyerat kal Mopyevria. For the region termed Morgia in the neighborhood of 
Garganus see Carta Stato Magg. Ital., sheet 25; for Je Murgie in the district of 


Latroncino see sheet 95; for Rio le Murgie and the Regione Murgetta near Poggio 
Reale in the district of Castiglione see sheet 21. 


2 In the codices of Plin. N. H. iii. 115 one of the two streams near Ariminum 
is called Aprusa (in cod. 7 is the form prusa). Following Cluverius, Ital. Ant., 
II, ed. 1624, p. 605 (cf. Nissen, Ital. Landeskunde, II, 1, p. 248) it is generally 
admitted that Aprusa corresponds to the modern Ausa. Is it certain, however, 
that the text of Pliny is exact; and, if it is, would the name of the Ausa near Forli 
also be derived from a Latin form “‘Aprusa”’? It does not seem so to me. In 
addition, it should be noted that Ausa is the name of a third stream which flows 
to the west of Aquileia and empties into the laguna of Marano in the Venetian 
estuary, between the mouths of the Tagliamento and the Isonzo. 


AUSONIA AND THE AUSONIANS 25 


progress it will be impossible to give a definite answer to this and 
similar questions. Furthermore, the study of toponomy must be 
closely associated with that of the ancient and mediaeval texts, 
and with historical literary tradition. Thus, in the case under 
discussion it would be impossible to attain definite results without 
seeking, for example, the reasons why Philistus, the Syracusan 
historian of the fourth century B. c., differing from Antiochus and 
Hellanicus, should have affirmed that the Siculi were driven from 
Italy, not by the Oenotrians and Ausonians, but by Siculus, son of 
Italus, the Ligurian leader, impelled by the Umbrians and Pelas- 
gians.* It should be noted, however, that although ancient writers 
differ regarding the way in which the Ausonians spread, they agree 
in affirming that they occupied nearly all of the central and southern 
portion of the peninsula. Moreover, Lycophron, Vergil, and 
Verrius Flaccus made no mistake in assigning to the Ausonians 
a greater extent of territory than that which was inhabited by the 
Auruncians. Vergil was a faithful follower of ancient tradition 
when he included in Ausonia the plain traversed by the Tiber, 
and certainly he was repeating these same traditions when he wrote: 
j Est locus, Hesperiam Grai cognomine dicunt, 

Terra antiqua, potens armis atque ubere glebae; 

Oenotri coluere viri; nunc fama minores 

Italiam dixisse ducis de nomine gentem.* 

t Philist. apud Dion. Hal. i. 22. 


2 Verg. Aen. i. 530 ff.; cf. Dion. Hal.i. 35. Also in the passage (Aen. vii. 85) 
where Vergil speaks of the entire Oenotrian land whence those who went to consult 
the oracle of Albunea at Tivoli took their departure, he gives Oenotria the same 
extension as that given Ausonia by Antiochus and Aristotle. 





Fic. 1.—Coins of the Auruncians. 


II 


THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN REGIUM AND TARENTUM 
AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 


Diodorus places in the fourth year of the seventy-sixth Olym- 
piad (473 B. Cc.) the war between the Tarentines and the Iapygians 
which resulted in the well-known defeat of Tarentum. Herodotus 
does not hesitate to call this the greatest defeat which in his memory 
ever befell a Greek people.‘ Diodorus tells the story as follows: 

In Italy arose a conflict between the Tarentines and the Iapygians concern- 
ing their boundaries. For some time they limited themselves to skirmishes, 
and to laying waste the neighboring country of the enemy. Soon the feeling 
of hostility increased. Numerous slaughters occurred, and they at last decided 
upon a pitched battle. The Iapygians drew up the forces they had at their 
disposal, and added those of their neighboring allies, so that they were finally 
able to bring together over 20,000 men. The Tarentines, when they heard 
the strength of the forces collected aganist them, assembled their own city 
militia, and added that of their ally, Regium. A terrible battle ensued, and 
many fell on either side, but the Iapygians finally came out victorious. The 
conquered troops fled in two divisions, of which one retreated toward Taren- 
tum and the other fled toward Regium. The Iapygians followed their example 
and also separated into two divisions, of which one pursued the Tarentines, 
there being but a short distance between them [or else between the field of 
battle and Tarentum], and killed many of their enemy. Those who pursued 
the other division displayed such valor that they rushed into Regium together 
with the fugitives and took possession of the city.? 

The account of Diodorus deserves entire credence in that 
which refers to the alliance between Tarentum and Regium, and 
to the great slaughter effected by the Iapygians. It is confirmed 
by Herodotus, who says that Micythus, ruling in Regium in the 
name of Anaxilaus (d. 476-75 B. C.), compelled his fellow-citizens 
to hasten to the aid of Tarentum, and that 3,000 of them perished. 
Aristotle, too, confirms this narration and speaks of the great 
number of yv@piyoe Tarentines killed in that defeat, and of the 
change from an aristocratic to a democratic constitution in Taren- 

t Herodot. vii. 170. 2 Diod. xi. 52. 3 Herodot. vii. 170. 


27 


28 ANCIENT ITALY 


tum.* Moreover, the account of Aelianus concerning the days of 
fasting which the Regians instituted for the benefit of the besieged 
Tarentines—an account which I think critics have hitherto over- 
looked—should be referred to this alliance.?, Diodorus’ narration, 
however, is utterly absurd when it speaks of the flight of the 
Regians, and of the pursuit of the Iapygians, who kept so closely 
behind their enemy that they were enabled to enter Regium with 
them, and to take possession of the city. 

Lorentz, who has done so much for the history of Tarentum, 
does not think that this account should be doubted;3 and Doehle 
merely finds it exaggerated.4 Grote, however, observes justly 
that it does not deserve credence, both because Micythus continued 
to govern Regium till 467,5 and because Regium was too far 
from the field of battle. ‘To use his own words, Diodorus ‘must 
have had a strange conception of the geography of southern Italy, 
to speak of a flight from Iapygia to Regium.”°® To the arguments 
of Grote could be added others, such as the number of Italiot 
cities in between, the nature of the territory to be traversed, etc. 
It is useless, however, to stop to refute a statement which at the 
first glance is seen to be absurd. 

Diodorus was evidently wrong, but no one, so far as I know, has 
sought the origin of his error. It is natural to think that his 
account is not entirely false. He drew from good sources, and 
probably often gave passages taken from Timaeus. If the other 


1 Aristot. Polit. v. 2. 8. 

2 Aclian. V. H. v. 20 says that Tapavrlywy moXopxoupévwy brd ’ AOnvalwy 
kal peddévTwv addvac Au@ ol ‘Pyyivor épnploavro pulav juepay év rails déxa vy- 
orevey Kal éxelyns Tas Tpopas éxxwpjoat Taparrivors. I am not certain whether 
it has already been noted that there is an error in the word’ A@nvaiwv, which is 
present even in the Teubner edition of Hercher. It is impossible to conceive of 
a siege of Tarentum by the Athenians, especially at the time of their expedition 
against Sicily. It seems to me that the word should be changed to Meccarlwy, 
It is hardly necessary to recall that the tradition of Antiochus of Syracuse (fr. 15 
in Miiller, F. H. G., I, p. 184) concerning the origin of Tarentum, as has often 
been correctly noted, was composed in consequence of the alliance in question. 


3 Lorentz, De veterum Tarentinorum rebus gestis (Luccaviae, 1838), p. 8. 
4 Doehle, Geschichte Tarents (Strassburg, 1877), pr. p. 14, n. 2. 
5 Grote, Hist. Greece (Harper), V, p 238. 6 Cf. Diod. xi. 78. 2. 


ALLIANCE AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 29 


particulars are true, would it not be just, instead of condemning 
this part of the narrative, to see if he has not been guilty of one of 
those inaccuracies which, as everyone knows, occur frequently in 
his writings? Might it not be that the Regians sought refuge, not 
in Regium, which is impossible, but in some other and nearer city ? 
And, in that case, what city should we substitute for Regium? I 
believe that I can solve in substance these problems. 

In the first place, let us inquire why Micythus, a politician who 
is correctly represented as both wise and prudent, should have 
wished to aid the Tarentines contrary to the desire of his people. 
The reason which led him to favor an alliance with so distant a 
city was doubtless the jealousy of Regium toward Syracuse and 
Hiero. In 476 B.c. the Chalcidian sister-cities, as it were, of 
Regium—i. e., Naxos, Catana, and Leontini—were subject to 
Hiero, who had driven out the former inhabitants and established 
military colonies, substituting Peloponnesan mercenaries for the 
indigenous populations.’ The rivals of Syracuse were, on the one 
hand, Agrigentum, where Theron ruled, and, on the other, Regium, 
which held the key to the strait, and where Micythus cared so well 
for the interests of the sons of Anaxilaus and the Regians, that 
Hiero had to resort to intrigue to get rid of him and take advantage 
of the inexperience of his own young relatives.?_ Hiero and Syra- 
cuse aimed at both political and commercial supremacy. Although 
Messina was in the power of Regium, Hiero had nevertheless been 
able to cross the strait. In 474 B.C., one year before the Taren- 
tine war, Hiero had gone to the aid of Cumae and had defeated the 
Etruscans. The Chalcidian city of Campania had not turned, as 
one would expect, to her natural ally, her colony of Regium, but 
to Doric Syracuse. 

The dominion of the Regians was therefore shaken to its founda- 
tions, and even Regium itself had been menaced by Hiero at the 
time when Anaxilaus made war on the neighboring Locrians, who 
were the allies of Syracuse. It was thus natural that Regium pro- 
cured allies and sought to rival Syracuse, whose victorious ships 

t Diod. xi. 49. 2 Diod. xi. 66 (467 B.c.); cf. Sch. Pind. Pyth. i. 112. 

3 Cf. Sch. Pind. Pyth. i. 98. 


30 ANCIENT ITALY 


were pressing to places where the Ionian-Chalcidian and Ionian- 
Phocaean cities had hitherto exercised an almost uncontested 
hegemony. 

The places from which Regium could hope for aid were Locri, 
Tarentum, and the Achaean cities. But of these last, Sybaris had 
been destroyed in 510 B. c., and Metapontum was under the con- 
trol of Tarentum.t There remained Croton, at that time the most 
important city of the Achaeans. It, too, had been menaced by 
‘Hiero some years earlier,? and might therefore be thought disposed 
to aid Regium against Syracuse. It happened, however, that the 
relations between Croton and Regium were by no means friendly. 
As early as the battle of the Sagras the Locrians had the Regians 
as allies against the inhabitants of Croton. Locri had been 
attacked by Croton on account of the aid given to Ionian Siris. If 
we find the Regians as allies of the Locrians in the battle of the 
Sagras, it may be supposed that they—practically Ionians as they 
were—had also aided Siris, which was likewise a commercial rival 
of Croton. That Regium was not on friendly terms with Croton 
about 473 B. Cc. is shown by the circumstance that she received the 
Pythagoreans who fled from Croton shortly after that year. And, 
finally, Regium could not hope for aid from the Locrians, who at 

t It seems to me evident from all that we know of the history of Metapontum, 
that she was under the hegemony of Tarentum, and that she had lost the right of 
following an independent policy, eyen though retaining her autonomous form of 
government. Forexample, the Tarentines in the struggle against Thurii in 433 B. C. 
two years after the foundation of that city, seized Siris and founded in its place the 
city of Heraclea (Diod. xii. 36). Since in this war there is no mention of Meta- 
pontum, and it is stated that at a later period the Tarentines held at Heraclea the 
council of the Italic league (see Strab. vi p. 280 C ), it is clear that Metapontum 
had no direct voice in the assemblage, as did Tarentum, the mistress of the Achaean 
territory. For the same reason, when (about 453 ?) the Achaean League was revived 
(see Polyb. ii. 39), among the cities taking part were Croton, Caulonia, and the 
second Sybaris; but there is no mention of Metapontum, which, although pre- 
serving local autonomy and coinage, had become in its external policy a simple 
dependency of Tarentum. This fact was not understood by Hollander in his 
otherwise excellent work (De rebus Metapontinorum [Gottingae, 1851], p. 34), 
where he supposes that Metapontum was a member of the league of which Poly- 
bius speaks, and wonders why Metapontum is not mentioned in connection with 
the struggle between Tarentum and Thurii. 

2 See below. 3 See Aristot., fr. 11, in Miiller, F. H. G., II, p. 274. 


ALLIANCE AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 31 


that time must have been the most hostile of all. Common peril 
had united their forces at the Sagras, but when this was over the 
ancient enmity again made its appearance—an enmity due to 
difference of race, to the rivalry caused by their proximity, and to 
the fact that Locri had possession of Mesma and Hipponium, and 
through these (as Croton, Siris, and Sybaris had done) not only had 
injured and continued to injure the commerce of Regium,' but 
also had prevented her territorial expansion in Bruttium. Regium, 
then, was hostile to Locri about 473, and Locri, situated between 
the hostile cities of Regium and Croton, found safety in relying 
upon Syracuse, which from this time on remained her faithful ally. 
Only Tarentum remained, but her friendship was precious. 
She possessed the only ample and safe harbor between the Cape of 
Leucas and the Strait of Messina, and the only good winter 
station. Moreover, every ship which went from Italy to Greece, 
or came from the East to the West, had to touch at her port.? 
Tarentum, it is true, was a Doric city, and thus should have 
been the natural ally of Syracuse; but in all ages blood-affinity has 
yielded to commercial interests. The prosperity of Syracuse at 
the time of the Deinomenids could not help awakening the jealousy 
of the Spartan city, and calling forth the hostile feelings which 
Tarentum held toward Syracuse at the time of the great Dionysius.3 
Regium was mistress of the strait, and Tarentum possessed the 
port nearest to both Greece and the East. An agreement between 
them was not only injurious to the commercial interests of all the 
other Italiot cities, but was destined to check Syracuse, which was 
t To understand the commercial loss which the possession of Hipponium by 
Locri caused Regium, it is enough to recall that Hipponium was one of the best 
places for catching the tunny-fish. Indeed, according to the judgment of Arche- 


stratus, the famous Sicilian epicure (apud Athen. vii, p. 302 C.), the tunny-fish of 
Hipponium were the best in the world. 

2 Polyb. x. 1. 

3 The true feelings of the Tarentines toward Syracuse at the time of Diony- 
sius are clearly shown by Polyaenus (v. 8. 2), and their hatred of their powerful 
rival at the time of Agathocles is well known. So far as we know, the cities were 
friendly only at the time of the Syracusan democracy, at the arrival of the Athe- 
nians, and at the time of Dionysius II. 


4 Polyb. x. 1 


32 ANCIENT ITALY 


spreading out, and at that time was penetrating boldly into the 
Tyrrhenian Sea, where, as we have already seen, the Chalcidian 
cities, foremost among which were Regium and Cumae, had long 
exercised an important control. It was because Micythus wished 
to rival Syracuse that in the second year of the seventy-seventh 
Olympiad (471 B.c.) he founded a Regine colony at Pyxus or 
Buxentum (Policastro) on the Tyrrhenian coast." It is this colony 
which gives the key to the alliance between Tarentum and Regium, 
and also to the disputed passage in question. Diodorus says that 
Micythus é«tice I1v€0bvra; and heis right if he means that Micythus 
founded there a Regine colony, but wrong if he means that Buxen- 
tum was then founded for the first time. A silver incuse stater of 
the middle of the sixth century shows that Pyxus stood in relations 
of alliance and friendship with Siris, the Ionian city founded by 
Colophon, and situated on the banks of the river of the same name 
on the Tarentine Gulf.? 

Both Regium and Tarentum had to compete with Sybaris, 
whose inhabitants were enabled, by ascending the valley of the 
Coscile, to transport the wares of Miletus to the two colonies of 
Laos and Scidrus on the Tyrrhenian coast. By the same channel, 
too, the wares of Etruria came down to Sybaris and were there 
placed on ships bound for the East. In addition, the Sybarites com- 
peted with the inhabitants of Croton, who for the same purpose 
had early seized upon Terina and Tempsa on the Tyrrhenian side. 

We know that about the middle of the sixth century the three 
Achaean cities, Metapontum, Sybaris, and Croton, made war upon 
and destroyed Ionian Siris.4 There is no doubt about the cause 
which led the Achaeans to subjugate Siris; it was commercial 


t Diod. xi. 59. 

2 Head, Hist. num., p. 69; Garrucci, Le monete dell’ Italia antica, II, p. 145, 
Plate 108, numbers 1, 3. On one side of the stater (Ke) we read Zuptvos; on the 
other, Ilvgses. The meaning of this coin was also noticed by Busolt, Griech. Gesch., 
Tp. 2035401, .p.1220. 

3 Lenormant, La grande Gréce, I, p. 263 ff.; Busolt, Griech. Gesch., I, p. 256, 

4 For the date of this battle see Busolt, of. cit., II, p. 229, n. 4; cf., Grosser, 
Gesch. u. Alterthiimer d. Stadt Croton (Minden, 1866), I, pp. 22 ff.—a careful work, 
but without political insight, and not free from grave errors. 


ALLIANCE AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 33 


rivalry pure and simple. To its aid came Locri and possibly 
Regium. Certainly both of these cities had been attacked by 
Croton after the destruction of Siris, in favor of which city it is 
possible that Ionic Chalcidian Regium discriminated against 
Achaean Sybaris, Croton, and Metapontum.' 

If the above facts are considered in connection with the league 
between Regium and Tarentum in 473, and with the foundation of 
Pyxus in 471, it is evident that Micythus was endeavoring, together 
with Tarentum, to compete with—or, better yet, to oppose a bar- 
rier to—Syracuse, and possibly in part also to Agrigentum, since at 
that time both cities were aiming to supplant the other Italiot and 
Siceliot cities in all international commercial relations.?, Herodo- 
tus expressly states that Micythus compelled his fellow-citizens to 
offer aid to the Tarentines. ‘This is easily understood. Not only 
was Tarentum a Doric city, while the greater portion of the Regians 
were Ionic (which counts for much or little according to the 
interests involved), but it seemed, as it really was, very far away, 
and to have no direct relations with Regium. But Micythus was 
much more far-sighted than the Regians. The alliance with 
Tarentum seemed to him the best means of guaranteeing to 
Regium, and to the other Chalcidian colonies of Campania, a direct 
trade-route between the East and the West. Since the strait was 
but nominally in the hands of Regium, it was necessary to resort 
to strategy. The wares which came to Tarentum were disem- 

tIt is well to note that here and elsewhere, to the confusion of some later 
writers, Grosser (op. cit.. p. 19) has used apocryphal material, asserting, e. g., 
that there exists a coin of the alliance between Croton and Siris, from which he 
concludes that Siris fell into the power of Croton. Much less could this conclusion 
be drawn from Lycophron (vss. 983 ff.), or rather from his scholiast, since there 
the only allusion is to the war waged against Siris by Croton, Sybaris, and Meta- 
pontum; cf. Lust. xx. 2. 4 ff. 


2 Rathgeber, Grossgriechenl. u. Pythag. (Gotha, 1866), pp. 188 ff., has misun- 
derstood the meaning of the Regine colony of Pyxus, which he thinks was founded 
to hold in check the ambitions of Croton and the piracy of the Etruscans. It is 
probable that the inhabitants of Croton were enemies of the Regians, but they were 
also enemies of Hiero and Syracuse about 476 B. c. (cf. Diod. xi. 48; Sch. Pind. 
Ol. ii. 29). Moreover, the Etruscans had been severely defeated in 474, and in 471 
were certainly in no condition to molest the Siceliots. Of their later incursions 
the only mention is in 453 B. c. (cf. Diod. xi. 88). 


34 ANCIENT ITALY 


barked at the mouth of the Siris (today the Sinni) and carried up 
its valley to within a short distance of the opposite coast where 
Pyxus was located. Thus a rather long voyage along the shores 
of the Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas was spared; the passage through 
the Strait of Messina was avoided; and the wares, after but a 
brief journey and with no danger of being intercepted by hostile 
ships, were brought to within a short distance of Cumae, Naples, 
and the other Chalcidian colonies of Campania. Reasons similar 
to those which determined the alliance between Tarentum and 
Regium certainly maintained the good relations between Naples 
and Tarentum up to the fourth century B. c.* 

At first sight it would seem that Regium derived the greater 
advantage from the alliance. However, the excellence of her har- 
bor assured Tarentum the passage of all the wares which came 
from the East to the West, or vice versa. She feared no competi- 
tion, and it was she who favored Regium by giving her the prefer- 
ence in commercial relations. On the other hand, Tarentum was 
jealous of Syracuse. Moreover, while Regium was securely situ- 
ated, remote from the barbarian invasions—the Samnite tribes had 
not yet made their entrance into Bruttium—Tarentum was con- 
tinually menaced by her fierce neighbors, the Iapygian Messapians, 
and by the invading Samnite tribes.2, Regium was at that time at 
the head of an extensive confederacy of Ionian-Chalcidian cities, 
and was populous and flourishing. It_was natural that Tarentum, 
as an equivalent, should ask from her armed assistance in case of 
war. In addition, Regium was indirectly menaced by the same 
peril. It was no mere coincidence that in 474 B.c. Cumae was 
attacked by the Etruscans, and that in 473 Tarentum had to con- 
tend with the Iapygians. An assault had been made upon Cumae 
in 524, not only by Etruscans, but alsé by Umbrians and Dau- 
nians; and at about the same time the Tarentines were attacked 
by the Messapians.‘ ; 


t Dion. Hal. xv. 5; Liv. viii. 27. 2 See below. 

3 Strab. vi, p. 258 C. states that lexuce 5¢ udyiorov % TOv ‘Pyyivwy words Ka} 
mepwixldas éoxe svxvds. Its power was at its height at the time of Anaxilaus and 
Dionysius I. 

4 For the assault on Cumae in 524 B. Cc. see Dion. Hal. vii. 3. It is not possible 


ALLIANCE AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 35 


The Iapygians and Messapians were not the only ones to attack 
Tarentum. In the fifth century they were joined by the Peuce- 
tians.’ It is fair to suppose that the great defeat which befell the 
Tarentines about 473 was due, as we may derive from Herodotus, 
rather to fresh invasions of peoples of Samnite descent, than to 
the valor of the Messapian Iapygians.? 

At the beginning of the fifth century the Chalcidian cities— 
that is to say, the allied sister-cities of Regium—and Tarentum as 
well, were menaced by the same enemy. There was therefore 
another motive, besides those just mentioned, for the two widely 
separated Italiot cities to unite in their struggle against Hiero and 
the invading barbarians. For similar reasons the Italiot cities later 
united against the league of the Lucanians and Dionysius. 

From the above it is evident why the Regians, after their defeat 
at the hands of the Iapygians, fled toward some city which was not 
Tarentum, and was situated at some distance from it. They did 


to determine the date when the Tarentines won the victory over the Messapians 
and dedicated at Delphi the statue by Ageladas (cf. Paus. x. 10. 6). Lorentz 
(op. cit., pp. 4 ff.) places it in the seventy-eighth Olympiad= 468 B. c., but furnishes 
no special proof. A still somewhat uncertain element which escaped Lorentz, but 
which better establishes the date of the war, is that Ageladas made the statue of 
the Anochus of Tarentum (Paus. vi. 14. 11) who was victorius in the sixty-fifth 
Olympiad, or 520 B.C. (see Eus., ed. Schéne, ad lJoc.). It may be, however, that 
Ageladas received this order from the Tarentine Anochus some time before he 
worked for his own city. 


1 Unfortunately it is impossible to determine in what year the Tarentines 
defeated the united Iapygians and Peucetians. The gifts which they sent to Delphi 
on account of this victory were made by Onatas of Aegina (Paus. x. 13. 10). From 
Paus. vi. 12. 1; viii. 42. 8, we learn that Onatas worked for Hiero, whose gifts 
were sent to Olympia after his death (476 B.c.). On the strength of this, Lorentz 
(op. cit., p. 6) places the victory over the Iapygians and Peucetians in Ol.80= 
460 B.C. He is followed by Dohle (0p. cit., p. 27), who, without stating why, places 
the date between Ol.78 and Ol.80=468-460 B.c. Although uncertain, this date 
has an approximate value; cf. the statements of Paus. viii. 42. 7 concerning the 
period of Onatas. 

21 think this observation weakens the argument of Helbig (Hermes, XI 
[1876], p. 265), who takes for his basis the account of Herodotus and the youthful 
vigor of the Iapygians, and derives data for the period in which this people arrived 
in Apulia. I shall elsewhere demonstrate that the Peucetians were really a branch 
of the great Sabine parent-tribe, to which belonged the Piceni of Picenum and the 
Picentini on the confines of Campania. 


36 ANCIENT ITALY 


not seek refuge in an allied city, but in a possession of their own, 
since in the region toward the Ionian Sea they must have owned 
either a city or a fortress. 

That the Tarentines had granted the Regians the full possession 
of the fortress which rose on the site of ancient Siris is improbable. 
It is more natural to suppose that the Tarentines, who during all 
their political existence had struggled for the possession of the _ 
Siritis, and who had fought for it first with Metapontum (which at 
this period probably recognized their sovereignty), and later with 
Thurii, would not brook the superiority of Regium on those shores. 
Since, however, Regium was mistress of Pyxus, and carried on 
commerce with the Tarentines through the valley of the Siris, it 
seems reasonable to suppose that they owned a factory at the mouth 
of that river. 

Still another possibility suggests itself. It is known that 
Oenotria and Chonia had become hellenized before the time of the 
Samnite invasions.‘ The valley of the Siris had been in the pos- 
session of the Greeks at least from the sixth century. Is it not 
probable that Regium owned a fortress at that point in the valley 
which marked her own confines, or rather those of her colony, Pyxus? 
The passage in Aelianus (derived, as usual, from good sources) 
concerning the fasting of the Regians to aid Tarentum confirms 
this supposition. It is absurd to suppose that the fast occurred at 
Regium, but most reasonable to believe that those fasting were the 
soldiers and inhabitants of the city in the valley of the Siris. In 
that case it would be toward this fortress that the Regians turned 
their steps after their defeat. 

At any rate, we have at least made it probable that the place 
captured by the Iapygians was along the course of the Siris, 
although it would be useless to attempt to determine more nearly 
the exact situation of the city or fortress.?_ It may be noted merely 
that the facility with which the Iapygians mingled with the fugi- 
tives and seized their place of refuge tends rather to show that they 


t Grote rightly insists on this idea (op. cit., III, p. 393). 

2 It’ would also be useless, having only the data from Diodorus and Herodotus, 
to attempt to determine where the battle occurred. All that is certain is that it 
was not far from Tarentum. 


ALLIANCE AGAINST THE IAPYGIANS 37 


did not conquer a city properly speaking, but rather a fortress 
which was either badly or scantily defended, or else utterly desti- 
tute of defenders. 

Diodorus, however, must have drawn carelessly from his 
source (probably Timaeus), and have transformed the fortress of 
the Regians into the city of Regium itself. The error, nevertheless, 
has its useful side. It could have come only from a writer of the 
stamp of Diodorus, who unfortunately both here and elsewhere 
gives evidence of a lack of diligence, and of that which is worse 
than ignorance—a lack of understanding. 

To weaken the value of these statements it may be objected 
that, while the battle with the Iapygians is assigned by Diodorus 
to 473 B. C., the same author says that Pyxus was founded in 471. 
There is no use, however, of wasting words to show the worthless- 
ness of such an objection. It has often been observed, and is now 
a well-known fact, that Diodorus embraces under a single heading 
the events of various years. The very chapter which describes 
the battle is one of many cases which may be quoted to prove this 
assertion. Whoever reads this attentively will find that Diodorus 
places in 473 the beginning of the war between the Tarentines and 
Iapygians, and says that the skirmishes lasted éwt pév tivas 
xpovouvs before they came to pitched battle. Even a superficial 
reading of the text brings out the fact that all of this could not have 
taken place in 473, as even the more careful modern scholars are 
accustomed to state. The date of the Regine colony of Pyxus 
(471 B. C.) gives us approximately a ¢erminus ad quem for the battle 
itself. There seems to me no doubt that Regium must have been 
mistress of that city at the time when she sent over 3,000 of her own 
citizens to the aid of Tarentum. 

Strabo, who also mentions the founding of Pyxus by Micythus, 
adds that radu & arhpav of idpvcbdvtes mAHV orALyov.! This 
also is clear. As a result of the intrigues of Hiero, four years after 
having founded Pyxus, Micythus left Regium and went to live at 
Tegea in Arcadia.? With his departure disappeared the last rival 

t Strab. vi, p. 252 C. 

2 Herodot. vii. 170; Diod. xi. 66; Paus. v. 26. @ 


38 ANCIENT ITALY 


of Hiero, for Theron died in 472, and his son Thrasidaeus was 
afterward conquered at the Himera. Syracuse could now domi- 
neer in the Tyrrhenian Seaas well.* In 467, however, Hiero himself 
died, and with him perished the glory and power of the Deinom- 
enids, and the might of the proud Corinthian colony suffered a 
temporary eclipse. 

t Rathgeber’s observations (0p. cit., p. 189) to the effect that the Regine colony 


of Pyxus became less important on account of the rivalry between Croton and 
Terina, have neither foundation nor value. 


III 
THE LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 


Pausanias, in speaking of the statues dedicated at Olympia 
to victorious athletes, mentions among others that of Euthymus 
of Locri, the work of Pythagoras of Regium, and takes occasion 
to introduce a legend which is also referred to by Aelianus and 
Suidas, and which, in brief, is as follows: Ulysses in his wander- 
ings touched at Temesa, where one of his companions, having 
violated a virgin, was stoned to death by the natives. Shortly 
afterward, the Sa/uev of the man began to take such savage 
vengeance on the inhabitants of Temesa that they even planned 
to leave Italy. An answer from the Pythian Apollo, however, 
induced them to remain, and to placate the hero with a temple and 
with the annual sacrifice of one of the most beautiful of the virgins. 
Euthymus of Locri, son of the river Caecinus which separates the 
Regine from the Locrian territory, on his return from his victory 
in boxing at Olympia, arrived at Temesa at the moment when the 
hero was being offered his usual victim. He obtained permission 
to enter the temple, and at sight of the maiden his pity was changed 
to love. He therefore decided to conquer the hero and marry 
the maiden. Arming himself, he firmly awaited the hero, and 
forced him to leave the land and throw himself into the sea. After 
this feat Euthymus celebrated a splendid wedding. This much 
Pausanias says he had from hearsay (jxovea), and then he adds: 

I remember that I once came upon a picture which was a copy of an old 
painting. It was like this: There was a youth [i. e., Euthymus], Sybaris, and 
a river Calabrus, and a spring Lyca, and near a hero’s shrine the city of Temesa; 
and there, too, was the ghost which Euthymus expelled. The ghost was of a 


horrid black color. His whole appearance was most dreadful, and he wore a 
wolfskin. On the picture was also written the name of Alybas.* 

t Paus. vi. 6. 4 ff.; cf. Suid. ad v. Ev@uuos, who abridges either Pausanias or 
their common source, and who more correctly calls the ghost ’AAUBas, which in the 
codices of Pausanias is certainly erroneously termed Lycas or Lybas; cf. Ael. V. H. 
viii. 18; Prov. Alex. 131. 


39 


4° ANCIENT ITALY 


The character of Euthymus, although involved in legend, is cer- 
tainly historical, as is also the fact that a statue was erected to 
him by Pythagoras of Regium.* And that even in the account of 
his struggle with the hero of Temesa there is involved some truth, 
is shown by a passage in Strabo, who, in speaking of Temesa, says: 

Near Temesa, surrounded by a grove of wild olives, is the heroon of Polites, 
one of the companions of Ulysses, who was betrayed and killed by the bar- 
barians, and became so desirous of vengeance that those who inhabited the 
region were compelled to pay him tribute, in response to an oracle, and gave 
rise to the proverb which is used when speaking of an unmerciful man: “The 
hero of Temesa is in him.” When the Epizephyrian Locrians captured the 
’ city, it is said that Euthymus the boxer contended with the hero and, having 

conquered him, forced him to return the tribute to the inhabitants.’ 
The account of Pausanias agrees with that of Strabo, and is 
probably derived from the same source. The passage from Strabo 
‘has the additional advantage of showing that we have to deal with 
more than a myth pure and simple, and that the account involves 
one absolutely historical fact, namely, the conquest of Temesa by 
the Locrians, who were probably captained by the boxer Euthy- 
mus, just as the inhabitants of Croton had been by the athlete 
Milo in the struggle against Sybaris. It is also probable that the 
tribute which Euthymus wished restored was a real tribute which 
Temesa had been paying to Croton. From about the middle of 
the sixth century Croton had been either the ally of Temesa or else 
her mistress. As I shall have occasion to repeat, Temesa was not 
in origin an Achaean city, but was regarded as a colony either of 
the Aetolians or of the Phocians.3 
1 The base of the statue of Euthymus, inscribed as the work of Pythagoras 


(here termed a Samian), was found in the excavations at Olympia; cf. Roehl, 
Inscr. gr. ant., no. 388, and Loewy, Inschr. gr. Bildhauer (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 19 ff. 


2 Strab. vi, p. 255 C.; cf. Ael. Joc cit. A partial comparison between the two 
passages was made by Marincola-Pistoia, Opuscoli di storia patria (Cantanzaro, 
1871), p. 105, the first among Calabrian scholars to recognize the importance of the 
account for the history of Temesa. 


3 Temesa was a colony of the Aetolians led by Thoas, according to the source | 
of Strab. vi, p. 255 C.; or of Phocians led by Schedius and Epistrophus, grandsons 
of the Phocian Naubolus, and coming from the Crissaean Gulf, according to that 
of Lycophron, vss. 1067 ff. The legend of Thoas seems of Achaéan origin and is 
derived from the domination of Croton over the city. Thoas was a hero of the 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 41 


Let us now see with what other events the conquest of Temesa 
on the part of the Locrians is connected, and at what period this 
conquest occurred. So far as I know, no one has as yet attempted 
such an investigation. 

Pausanias, after stating that Euthymus was declared victor in 
the boxing contests in the seventy-fourth, seventy-sixth, and 
seventy-seventh Olympiads—i.e., in the years 484, 476, and 472 
B. C.—goes on to say that on his return to Italy he contended 
against the hero.t | That Euthymus really won three times at 
Olympia, as Pausanias asserts, is confirmed by the inscription to 
which we have just referred. According to Suidas,* however, 
the three victories occurred after the defeat of Euthymus at the 
hands of the Thasian Theagenes, who conquered in the seventy- 
fifth Olympiad,‘ or in 480 B. c., and therefore in the seventy-sixth, 
seventy-seventh, and seventy-eighth Olympiads, or in 476, 472, 
and 468 B.c. A comparison between the texts of Pausanias and 
Suidas, however, makes it probable that Suidas erred in deriving 
his information, whether his authority was Pausanias, whom he 
often seems to copy directly, or a common source. Following the 
words of Pausanias, it would seem at first glance that Euthymus 
arrived at Locri after 472. If, however, we examine this passage 
more closely, it will be found necessary to modify this opinion, as 
it is hardly possible that Euthymus remained at Olympia between 
the years 484 and 472. In all probability he returned home after 
each of his three victories. The expression é7av7xwv is vague and 
general, and might refer to either 484, 476, or 472 B.c. But, 
although vague, the passage from Pausanias is precious, since from 
it we learn that Euthymus conquered Temesa at the time when the 
Deinomenids were ruling at Syracuse. Gelo was in power between 
484 and 478, and his brother Hiero died in 467 B.c. It is the 
study of the Italiot policy of these rulers, and of their actions in 


Peloponnesan Achaeans (see Paus. v. 25. 8 ff.; and cf. Hom. J/. vii. 168). It 
should be remembered that the Opuntian Locrians were ashamed of their origin 
and were accustomed to call themselves Aetolians (cf. Paus. x. 38. 4). 


1 Paus. vi. 6. 7. 
2 Roehl, op. cit., no. 388: Et’@uyos Aoxpds ’Agruxdéos rpls Odvume’ évixwy, 
3 Ad v. Ev@upos. 4 Paus. vi. 6. 5. 


42 ANCIENT ITALY 


regard to Locri, which will make us fully understand the meaning 
of the capture of Temesa by the Locrians. 

Up to the preceding century Temesa had been either a colony 
or an ally of Croton. This is shown by the silver staters bearing 
the names of the two cities. ‘These staters endured as late as the 
beginning of the following century.t | The attack of Locri was 
in reality directed against Croton. Since the middle of the pre- 
ceding century the inhabitants of Croton had in vain tried to sub- 
jugate the Locrians, who in their city beside the Sagras had ably 
succeeded in defending their liberty. In the battle of the Sagras, 
however, they had the Regians as allies, and now these also had 
become their fierce enemies. Between 478 and 476 Anaxilaus, 
the powerful ruler of Regium, was at war with the Locrians, and 
only the intervention of Hiero compelled him to respect the allies 
of Syracuse.? In 476 Croton made war upon the Sybarites, who 
likewise were saved from ruin by the intervention of Hiero.3 

It seems to me that there is no need of any great amount of 
political insight to establish, by means of these apparently iso- 
lated and fragmentary passages, which are in reality closely con- 
nected, the fact that the inhabitants of Regium and Croton were 
the common enemies of the Locrians, and that their taking of 
Temesa was merely an episode in these events. 

Through Herodotus+ we know that the Carthaginians were 
led to assail Theron of Agrigentum by Anaxilaus of Regium, father- 
in-law of Terillus, whom Theron had driven from Himera. The 
battle of Himera (480 B. c.) brought to naught the designs of Anaxi- 
laus, and confirmed the power of Theron, and also that of Gelo of 
Syracuse. It was natural that Gelo should now make Anaxilaus 
pay dearly for bringing the Carthaginians into Siceliot affairs, even 
to the extent of making him give up his own children as hostages. 
And, although it is said that Gelo was generous toward him;S it 

1 Head, op. cit., pp. 80, 96. 

2 See Sch. Pind. Pyth. i. 89; ii. 34. Hiero mounted the throne in 478 (Diod. 
xi. 38); Anaxilaus died in 476 (Diod. xi. 48). 

3 Diod. xi. 48; Sch. Pind. Ol. ii. 29. 

4 Herod. vii. 165. 

5 At least Diodorus (xi. 66) makes Hiero say this to the sons of Anaxilaus. This 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 43 


is nevertheless evident that he wished to derive benefit from the 
victory, and in his turn mingle in the affairs of Italy. 

Duris of Samos, the historian of Agathocles, relates that near 
Hipponium was a sacred grove, in which was an edifice erected by 
Gelo, entitled the “‘Horn of Amalthea.”* From this passage we 
are certainly not authorized to deduce that Hipponium fell under 
the domination of the Deinomenids.? We may, however, conclude 
from it that Gelo, when he benefited Hipponium, the colony of 
Locri, initiated that Italiot policy which was continued by his 
brother Hiero when he interfered in favor of Locri, and which was 
closely copied by Dionysius I when he made Locri a stepping-stone 
toward his domination of the Italiot cities. We know that Diony- 
sius rewarded Locri for her loyalty by giving her the territory of 
the various colonies of Croton—i.e., Caulonia, Scylacium, and 
possibly, as we have elsewhere noted, that of Terina. Hence, 
when at the time of the Deinomenids we see the Locrians assail and 
take possession of Temesa, which was likewise a colony or an ally 
of Croton, it is evident that in this also they were supported by 
Syracuse. Thanks to their alliance with her, they were enabled 
to accomplish similar results against like enemies both in the fifth 
and in the succeeding century. 

A confirmation of the above is given by another passage from 
Pausanias, who says that Astylus of Croton was thrice declared 
victor in the stadium at Olympia, but that the second and third 
times, as a favor to Hiero, he had himself proclaimed, not from 
Croton, but from Syracuse. Pausanias adds that on account of 
this the inhabitants of Croton regarded the house of Astylus as 
infamous and used it as a prison, and that they threw to the ground 
his statue, the work of Pythagoras of Regium, which he had dedi- 
cated in the temple of Lacinian Hera. Astylus conquered in the 


would also prove the strict bonds of relationship existing between Hiero and 
Anaxilaus. 

1 Duris apud Athen. xii, p. 512 A-=M F. H. G, III, p. 479, no. 441. 

2 It seems to me that Holm (Gesch. Sic., I, p. 211) exaggerates when he says 
in this connection: ‘‘Wir haben sogar Spuren, dass Gelon ausser dem gréssten 
Theile Siciliens auch einen Theil von Italien beherrschte.” 

3 Paus. vii. 13. 1. One of the victories of Astylus was sung by Simonides (see 
Bergk, Poet. lyr. Grec., III4, p. 391, fr. no. 10). 


44 ANCIENT ITALY 


seventy-third, seventy-fourth, and seventy-fifth Olympiads, corre- 
sponding to the years 488, 484, and 480 B.c.* It seems to me, how- 
ever, that before 480 the inhabitants of Croton could not have been 
hostile toward Syracuse, for otherwise they would not have allowed 
Astylus to place in the temple of Hera the statue which had been 
made by Pythagoras of Regium; and it also seems to me that any 
resolutions detrimental to Astylus, who had declared himself a 
Syracusan in 484, must have been taken after 480, the year of his 
third victory, and also the year of the battle of Himera, since it was 
after that battle that the Syracusans interfered directly as masters 
of the affairs of Italy. 

It was with reason that Croton bore such hatred toward Syra- 
cuse, since the aid given the Locrians, as also the loss of Temesa, 
was for her an inestimable injury. ‘Temesa was so situated that 
Croton could compete successfully along commercial lines with the 
Chalcidian cities controlling the Strait of Messina. To lose her 
meant no longer to have free access to the Tyrrhenian coast. Sub- 
sequent to the period of which we are speaking we have no more 
coins of Temesa. On the other hand, it was not till about 480 that 
the coins of Terina appeared. Thus the numismatical data are in 
perfect harmony with the literary. 

About the middle of the fourth century Temesa was in the 
power of the Brettians, from whom she was taken by Hannibal. 
She continued to exist as a Roman colony, and Pausanias—pro- 
vided, of course, that he is really giving personal information, and 
not reproducing exactly his ancient source—asserts that she was 
still inhabited in his time.? That after 480 she ceased to coin 
money is evidently due to the fact that she then came into the power 
of the Locrians, who coined money neither in their own city nor 
in their colonies of Mesma and Hipponium. There are no coins 
from these cities before the middle of the fourth century.3 

In all probability the inhabitants of Croton sought by the found- 
ing of Terina to remedy the loss they had suffered. The new city, 


t See Eus., ed. Schéne, I, p. 203. 2 See Strab. vi, p. 255 C ; Paus. Joc. cit. 

3 An analogous phenomenon is presented by Sparta, which did not commence 
to coin money till about the end of the fourth century, under King Areus (see 
Head, op. cit., pp. 363 ff.). 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 45 


which dominated the isthmus between the gulfs of Hipponium 
and Scylacium, and which protected the road leading to the Ionian 
Sea and to Croton, was a point of offense toward the valley of the 
Lameto, which certainly in the course of time also fell into the 
hands of Croton. It is likewise probable that Temesa again 
became a possession of the Achaearr cities at the time when, with 
Hiero and Thrasybulus, the power of the Deinomenids, as also 
that of Locri, disappeared. Thus we understand why Temesa, 
although no longer in the hands of Locri, coined no more money; 
for by that time Terina had become mistress of the valley of the 
Lameto, and would not tolerate an autonomous and rival city in 
such close proximity. 

We have seen that at about the same period, and possibly in 
the same year, in which Hiero intervened in favor of the Locrians, 
he also aided the Sybarites, who were threatened by Croton. The 
inhabitants of Croton were the common enemies of both of these 
cities, and we may suppose that the Locrians were at that period 
friends of the Sybarites, who were living in their colonies of Laos 
and Scidrus,' and possibly also at Posidonia. 

A possible confirmation of this supposition may be found in the 
legend of Euthymus. Pausanias, as we have seen, describes a 
painting in which appeared all of the characters and elements 
represcnted in the legend; i. e., Temesa, the temple of the hero, 
the daiéuwv, the spring Lyca, the river Calabrus, the veavicoxos, 
or Euthymus, and 2vS8apis. It seems to me that Sybaris can here 
be nothing else than the name of the liberated maiden. 

It has already been noted that the legend of Euthymus and his 
struggle against the da/uwyr sets forth in poetical form a historical 
fact, and relates to the conquest of Temesa by the Locrians led 
by Euthymus. We have also considered it probable that the 
tribute which the ghost demanded, and which Euthymus returned, 
indicates a real tribute imposed upon the city of Croton. 

Is it not also more natural, instead of believing that a marriage 
occurred between Euthymus and the liberated maiden, to think 
that also the name of this maiden, this 2vSapis, is mythical? To 


1 Herodot. vi. 21. 


46 ANCIENT ITALY 


understand the true import of this question it is necessary to refer 
to an analogous legend, preserved by Antoninus Liberalis, and 
taken by him from Nicander, who possibly heard it in the country 
of its origin. 

Near Parnassus and Crissa, says Nicander, was a cave in Mount 
Cirphis, in which lived a monster, called Lamia or Sybaris, that 
seized and devoured both cattle and men. The Delphians were 
already considering a change of location, and consulted the god, 
who ordered them to place in the cave the child of one of the citi- 
zens. The lot fell upon Alcyone, who with wreathed head was 
conducted to the cave of Sybaris. However, Eurybatus, son of 
Euphemus, who derived his origin from the river Axius, impelled 
by some 6a(uwv, met the young victim, fell in love, and, after 
removing the wreath from her head, asked to be conducted in her 
-stead to the cave. He there seized Sybaris, drew him forth into 
the light, and threw him down from the rocks. The head of the 
monster struck against a rock, from which gushed forth a spring, 
which too was termed Sybaris. From this, concludes Nicander, 
the Locrians who founded the city of Sybaris in Italy drew their 
name.* 

The points of contact between the two legends are very evident. 
Suffice it to notice that in the same way that Eurybatus, although 
son of Euphemus, takes his origin from the river Axius, so the 
Locrian Euthymus, although son of Astycles, was reputed the 
son of the river Caecinus.? The finding of the same legend at 
Temesa and-in Locris need cause no surprise. Parnassus stands 
between the land of the Phocians and that of the Ozolian Locrians, 
of whom the Epizephyrian Locrians in Italy were a colony.3 

t Ant. Lib. viii. 2 See Roehl, of. cit., no. 388; cf. Paus., loc. cit. 

3 Whether the Epizephyrian Locrians were by origin Opuntians or Ozolians 
was the occasion of controversy even in antiquity. Strab. vi, p. 259 C., or rather 
his source, opposed Ephorus, who thought they came from Opuntia (cf. Pseud.- 
Scymn., vss. 316 ff.). I do not know whether it has previously been noted that the 
passage in Paus. vi. 19. 6 shows that they were, for the most part at least, Ozolians. 
In this passage he says that in the treasury of the Sicyonians«at Olympia there was 
an dyadua mvéivov "Amrd\Xwvos érixptoov Thy kepadhv, which had been dedicated 


by the Locrians of Italy, and was the work of Patrocles of Croton. Although this 
Patrocles is unknown and his date uncertain, nevertheless from the nature of the 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 47 


Temesa itself is said to have been colonized in ancient times by the 
Phocians of Phocis. It is therefore natural that in the countries 
inhabited by the same people should be found this Greek myth, 
which reappears also in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda. 
We are struck, nevertheless, by the similarity between the name 
of the monster Sybaris and that of the Achaean city, and especially 
by the statement of Antoninus Liberalis to the effect that this gave 
origin to the founding of Locrian Sybaris in Italy. It is also to be 
noted that Solinus,t in speaking of the founding of Greek colonies 
in Italy, in a passage where he mentions various traditions which 
were derived from good sources, and of which some are also pre- 
served by other writers worthy of credence, asserts that Sybaris 
was founded “a Troezeniis et a Sagari Aiacis Locrii filii.” 

Is it true that Locrians had a share in the founding of Sybaris ? 
I see no reason for doubting such an assertion. Aristotle? says 
that Troezenians took part in its foundation. If Solon, or his 
source, agrees with the great philosopher in this, why should we 
think him in error in saying that Locrians as well came to Sybaris ? 
His statement is confirmed by the passage just quoted from Nican- 
der, a writer who is fairly well informed concerning the peoples of 
northern Greece. Itis not strange that the Achaeans who founded 
Sybaris should have summoned to take part in their colony the 
Ozolian Locrians who dwelt along the shores of the Corinthian 
Gulf, and who were directly opposite the metropolis of Sybaris, 
Helica, and separated from it merely by a narrow arm of the gulf. 
It is a characteristic of all Greek colonies, and indeed of most 
colonies past and present, that they are made up of mixed elements. 

If it is true that there was a Locrian contingent in the population 
of Sybaris, we understand better how the Locrians and the Syba- 
image we may conclude that it was archaic, and the friendship of the Epizephyrian 
Locrians for the Sicyonians finds a plausible explanation in the relations which - 


must have existed between the two peoples inhabiting the opposite shores of the 
Corinthian Gulf. 


t Solin. ii. 10, ed. Mommsen. 2 Aristot. Polit. v. 3. 3 See below. 


4 It is worthy of note that Lycophron (vss. 1075 ff.), when speaking of Temesa 
and the Phocian colony of the Naubolides, refers to the legend of the Trojan 
Setaia who perished at Sybaris. 


48 ANCIENT ITALY 


rites could have been united about 476 B.c. To the political 
reasons of the time would be added those determined by tradition 
and by affinity. Probably no small part of the strengthening of 
the mutual bonds was played by the laws of the Locrian Zaleucus. 
These laws were also in force in Achaean Sybaris at an early 
period.* ; 

We are far from asserting positively that the tradition is true. 
It could, for example, have had its origin in later political events. 
It may be that the alliance of 476 between the Sybarites and the 
Locrians gave rise to the tradition that Tarentum was founded by 
those citizens who did not wish to take part in the expedition 
against the Messanians. 

However one decides in regard to this intricate question, one 
thing I hold to be most probable, namely, that the name of Sybaris 
on the painting seen by Pausanias refers to the bonds of alliance 
which existed between Locri and Sybaris about 476 B. c.? 

The legends of Euthymus and Eurybatus are worthy of study 
in other respects also. It is interesting, for example, to note how a 
legend which was of either Phocian or Locrian origin, and which 
was localized in Magna Graecia, should have become fused with 
the myth referring to the adventures of Ulysses, and how a historical 
fact should finally have become adorned and clothed with the com- 
bined features of the two myths. Euthymus, a perfectly his- 
torical character, is no longer considered the son of Astycles, 
but becomes the son of the river which divides the territory of the 
Locrians from that of the neighboring Regians. He is not over- 


t Pseud.-Scymn., vss. 246 f. 


2 Paus. vi. 19. 9 says that according to some authors the ancient name of 
Lupiae (Lecce) was Sybaris. Keeping in mind a passage from Hyginus (apud 
Serv. ad Aen. iii. 553: ‘‘Aulon mons est Calabriae in quo oppidum fuit a Locris 
conditum;”’ cf. Hor. Carm. ii. 6. 18), and also one from Guido (ed. Parthey, 67, 
p- 502: ‘‘regionem Solentinam [sic] quae et Locria antiquitus dicta est, provincia 
Apulia est”), one might think that the Sybaris of Nicander, founded in Italy by the 
Locrians, was the one on the Sallentine peninsula. That a city of that name 
existed there is shown by Ovid Met. xv. 50 ff. (cf. my pamphlet, Sibari nella Mes- 
sapia [Pisa]). Varro (apud Prob. ad Verg. Ecl. vi. 31) also speaks of Locrians in 
Messapia. But both the passage from Solinus, and a comparison between the 
legend of Eurybatus and that of Euthymus, render it unnecessary for me to refute 
this supposition. 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 49 


taken by death, but after a long life becomes a hero of more than 
mortal nature. With the legend which Pausanias either heard at 
Olympia, or more probably reproduced from some early source, 
agrees the brief and concise account of Aelianus, who adds that 
Euthymus descended to the banks of the Caecinus and disappeared. 
With it agree also the words of Callimachus, as cited by Pliny: 

Consecratus est vivos sentiensque eiusdem oraculi [i. e., of Delphi] iussu 
et Iovis deorum summi adstipulatu Euthymus pycta, semper Olympiae victor 
et semel victus. Patria ei Locri in Italia. Ibi imaginem eius et Olympiae 
alteram eodem die tactam fulmine Callimachum ut nihil aliud miratum video 
ad eumque iussisse sacrificare, quod et vivo factitatum et mortuo, nihil de eo 
mirum aliud quam hoc placuisse dis.* 

With the myth of Euthymus may be compared that of Epidius, 
a hero of Nuceria who is said to have fallen into the neighboring 
Sarnus, and to have felt horns sprouting upon his forehead. 
Shortly afterward he disappeared and was worshiped as a god by 
the Alfaterni of Nuceria. From him M. Epidius, the rhetorician, 
and teacher of Augustus and Anthony, pretended to derive his 
origin.?, This is a well-known form of myth, appearing also in 
the story of Aeneas, who fell into the Numicius and became a god. 

The diffusion of the legend of Euthymus, as also the general 
use of the proverb concerning him, shows clearly that the legend 
was soon treated of in literature, and was possibly in origin a 
literary product. Stesichorus of Himera, though born at Metau- 
rum and a citizen of a Locrian colony,3 sang of the victory at 
the Sagras in a palinode, and told the adventures of Leonymus, 
the Croton leader, who was wounded by Ajax, the protecting deity 
of the Locrians, and on that account betook himself to Leuce, an 
island in the Euxine Sea sacred to Achilles, where he was healed 
of his wound, and where he saw Helen, who sent by him the well- 
known message to the poet. One immediately suspects that the 


t Plin. N. H. vii. 47; cf. Schneider, Callimachea, II, p. 579, fr. 399. Possibly 
fr. 493, p- 650, 6 & é« Aoxpdv relxeos “Irahixod wap’... . fev dudvTwp, refers 
also to Euthymus (cf. Bergk, Amt. lyr., II, praef. p. xviii). 

2 Suet. De rhetor. 4. Epidius is also represented on the coins of Nuceria 
(cf. Head, op. cit., p. 35)- 

3 Cf. Suid., s. v. Zrnolxopos; Steph. Byz., s. v. Mdraupos. 

4 Paus. iii. 19. 11; cf. Bergk, Poet. lyr. Graec., III4, pp. 218 ff. 


50 ANCIENT ITALY 


victory of the Locrians and of Euthymus at Temesa may have 
furnished the opportunity for a poet of the school of Stesichorus or 
Xenocritus of Locri to compose a similar song of victory, in which 
real and fantastic elements, both historical and mythical, were 
mingled.* It is hardly necessary to recall that the accounts which 
have come down to us are mainly derived from the learned Alexan- 
drine poet Callimachus, who related other myths of this nature, 
and from the historian Timaeus, who collected the historical facts 
and the fables relating to the western Greeks. 

Finally, the account of Pausanias is valuable for still another 
reason. ‘The painting which was seen either by him or by his 
source was, according to his own confession, a reproduction of an 
ancient original. Archaeologists may decide upon the value of 
this statement for the history of painting. It will suffice for me to 


t According to the explicit and authoritative testimony of Glaucus of Regium 
(apud Plut. De mus. 10; Miiller, F. H.G., II, p. 24, fr. 4), it as said of Xenocritus 
of Locri: jpwikdv yap brobécewv mpdypatra éxoveGv moinrhy yeyovévar. Since 
Pausanias, where he says that Euthymus was a son of the river Caecinus, recalls 
the fact that the grasshoppers on one side of the river were vocal, and on the other 
not, and since the account of these grasshoppers given by Timaeus (see fr. 64, 65 
in Miiller, F. H. G., I, pp. 206 ff.) is possibly connected with the songs of the 
Locrian poet Eunomus, concerning whose period we possess no information what- 
ever, it may be supposed that Pausanias derived his information from some epini- 
cion of Eunomus, either indirectly, as through Polemon, or, in the final analysis, 
through Timaeus. It should be noted, however, that Timaeus (both in Strab. vi, 
p- 260 C., and in Antigonus of Caeystus i) does not mention the Locrian vocal 
grasshoppers in connection with the Caecinus, but in connection with the Halex. 
Thucydides (iii. 99, 103) mentions these rivers separately, although he places them 
both in Locrian territory. According to Aelianus (Joc. cit.) the Caecinus éo7il 
apd THs Tav Aoxp@v mwédews. According to Pausanias, on the other hand, this 
river, which he alone calls Kacxivys, separated the territory of the Locrians from 
that of the Regians. The fact that Philistus (apud Steph. Byz., s. v.; Miiller, 
F. H. G., I, p. 86, fr. 10) speaks of a Kalkivov Xwplov "Iradxdv is possibly in 
favor of Pausanias, who nevertheless depended on the same source as Aelianus. 
It is, however, natural to suppose that his words in regard to the position of the 
Caecinus and to the story of the grasshoppers are due to a contaminatio of two 
different accounts made by Pausanias himself, which forbids our indulging in suppo- 
sitions concerning the author of the epinicion. It might be noted here that, if we 
accept the correction of Coray, who for the words Av’ca rny7% of Pausanias substitutes 
Kanvca any}, we have another allusion to.the school of Stesichorus, who sang of 
Kanv«n, the beloved of Euathlus (cf. Bergk, Poet. lyr. Graec., III4, p. 222, fr. 43). 
At any rate, the myth was most popular and appears frequently in later literature. 


LEGEND OF EUTHYMUS OF LOCRI 51 


note that on the painting seen by Pausanias was recorded the river 
Kandafpos, near Temesa.* It is known that the Romans gave the 
name of Iapygia to Calabria, and generally admitted that the name 
of Calabria passed over to Bruttium between the sixth and seventh 
centuries. 

The passage from Pausanias has the further merit of making 
us better understand how the transition from one name to the 
other could have occurred, and adduces another favorable argu- 
ment to the theory of Mommsen, who held that, before the arrival 
of the Greeks, southern Italy from the Gulf of Tarentum to the 
Strait of Messina was inhabited by a people of like descent.? 

We are led to the same result by the name of Alybas, the da/uav 
honored near Temesa, if this "AXvSas was really the name of the 
earliest city at Metapontum. 

t The name of a confluent of the river Marro (Metaurus) which rises in the 
mountain-range northeast of Regium, is also Calabrian. 

2 Mommsen, Unterit. Dialekte, pp. 97 ff. 


3 See Eustath. ad Hom. Od. xxiv. 304; Hesych. and Steph. Byz., s. v.; Apoll. 
Lex. 24. Whether or not Metapontum was the Homeric Alybas is another question. 





Fic. 2.—Coin of the Alliance between 
Temesa and Croton. 





Fic. 3.—Coins of Terina. 


IV 
TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 


Terina, a colony of Croton, was, to judge from its coins, one of 
the most flourishing of the Hellenic cities, and although it is rarely 
named by historians, we shall see that it nevertheless played an 
important part in the wars waged in Magna Graecia. Our first 
problem will be to determine its location. The critics who in 
recent years have treated this question have seen only a portion, 
and certainly the least important portion, of the truth. I think 
it possible to contribute new material and new considerations to 
the solution of the problem, thanks to which we shall better under- 
stand the important strategic position held by the city in former 
times. 

According to the generally accepted opinion among Calabrian 
scholars, Terina should be sought near the river Savuto (the Saba- 
tus), about four miles north of Nocera Inferiore, on a plateau 
where fragments of masonry are seen, and where numerous anti- 
quities, have been discovered, among which were a few coins of 
Terina.*  Lenormant in his last work, the book, both good and 
bad, which he wrote on Magna Graecia, has produced a strange 
mixture of keen observations and innumerable, possibly intentional, 
inaccuracies. In this he has thought it wise to take up again the 
problem of the topography of Temesa and Terina, and, as it seems 
to me, has rendered probable, or almost certain, that Terina was 
situated near the modern Fiume di S. Biase, in the valley of the 
Lamato, or Fiume di S. Ippolito (the Lametus or Lamatus of the 
ancients), on the very spot which is today termed Bagni di S. 
Eufemia. Temesa he places at Le Mattonate, two miles south of 
the Savuto.? 

tL. Grimaldi, Studi archeologici sulla Calabria ultra seconda (Naples, 1845), 
p. 62. 


2 Lenormant, La grande Gréce, III, pp. 83 ff. Irefer to this, although all of his 
assertions cannot be accepted. Thus I cannot follow his reasoning in the case of 


53 


54 ANCIENT ITALY 


The Calabrian scholar Marincola-Pistoia has recently treated 
of this subject in a monograph on the city of Terina; but, after 
reproducing the arguments of Lenormant, he remains undecided as 
to whether the city should be placed at S. Eufemia, or on the pla- 
teau already mentioned, which he says (without giving his author- 
ity), ‘‘still preserves the ancient name of the city in its present 
appellation of Tirene or Tirina.’’* . 

I gladly recognize the merit of Marincola-Pistoia, but in this 
case I doubt whether his assertion is of value, and suspect that he 
has been deceived. This would not be the first instance in which 
an ancient site has preserved the name given it by some local 
scholar who believed that he had discovered there the remains of 
the city of which he was in search. It often happens that later 
writers are mistaken, and believe to be local and popular tradition 
that which is merely the result of literary speculation.2, Without 
a complete collection of the writings of Calabrian scholars on this 
subject it is useless to attempt to discover the origin of the confusion. 
It seems to me, however, that without doubt Terina should be 
sought in the valley of the Lameto. The Sinus Terinaeus of Pliny 
could not be derived from a city situated beyond Cape Suverum. 
For my own part I would rather seek the ruins of the ancient city of 
Temesa on the plateau near the Savuto.3 
the coin of Terina which represents a nymph near a fountain, and bears the legend 
ATH. This, following Mellingen, he thinks a corruption of ’Ay7s, and to be the 
"Apis of Lycophron, vs. 730. It is now known that the dp%s is not another river 
of Terina, but an epithet (=Jloxupés) of the Ocinarus (cf. the edition of Kinkel, 
p. 31; Sch. Vet. ad loc., ibid., p. 136). For the Homeric origin of this apys see 
the observations on Lycophron by Scheer in the Programm of Ploen, 1876, pp. 


ies MWe "Ayn of the coin, as has often been noted, is probably, the name of 
the designer (cf. Rathgeber, Grossgriechenland u. Pythag. [Gotha 1886], pp. 5 ff. 


t Marincola-Pistoia, Di Terina e di Lao (Cantanzaro, 1886), p. 14. In this 
work mention is made of a rich Greek tomb from the time of Agathocles, found 
near S. Eufemia (cf. pp. 16 ff.). 


2 This kind of error is unfortunately perpetuated by the unconscious laxity of 
the government in too readily allowing certain municipalities to embellish them- 
selves with ancient names which do not belong to them. This may seem an idle 
objection, and the matter is unimportant in itself, but as a result the government 
maps show many names which are destined either to create or to perpetuate both 
ancient and modern errors. Cf. Lenormant, op. cit., II, pp. 24 ff. 


3 Even the excellent map of Kiepert which ornaments Vol. X of the CIL. 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 55 


Lenormant was not the first to place Terina near S. Eufemia, 
and to recognize in the Fiume di S. Biase the Ocinarus of Lyco- 
phron. He was preceded, possibly without knowing it, by Rath- 
geber, who dedicated to Terina a good portion of that coarse and 
curious medley, entitled Magnagrecia e Pitagora, in which, mixed 
with many gratuitous assertions and tedious and absolutely unne- 
cessary digressions, are found many valuable bibliographical data, 
and now and then some observation of value.” 

There is no doubt that from the passages in ancient writers we 
should be led to place Terina in the valley of the Lamato, on the 
Tyrrhenian coast. Lycophron, on one of the two occasions when 
he mentions Terina, says that the body of the siren Ligea was 
carried by the waves to Terina, and that she was buried there by 
sailors near the mouth of the Ocinarus, which bathed her tomb.? 
Ligea was one of the three sirens who were honored on the coast of 
Campania and Lucania as far as Bruttium, and were worshiped 
in the localities which received their names; i.e., Parthenope 
(Naples), Leucosia (Cape Licosa), and Ligea (Terina).3 
places Terina on the plateau of the Tirena, a strategic point which dominates the 
entrance to the valley of the Savuto and the approach to that of the Crathis. I 
should prefer to place there the ancient Temesa, and attach little importance 
to the fact that the distances in the Itineraries would rather lead us to place 
it two miles to the south (Torre del Casale? cf. Romanelli apud Marincola- 
Pistoia in Opuscoli di storia patria [Cantanzaro, 1871], p. 92). Lenormant (op. 
cit., III, p. 89; cf. Marincola, Dz Terina, etc., p. 21, n. 3) wrongly asserts that 
Temesa was situated at Le Mattonate, for in the course of centuries it may have 
been moved, even in antiquity, and either the Greek Temesa may not have been the 
one which still existed in the second century (cf. Paus. vi. 6. 10), or else the city 
may have been on the plateau near the Savuto, while at Torre del Casale were the 


mines of which Romanelli speaks, and which are said to have pertained to Homeric 
times (cf. Hom. Od. i. 184). 


t Rathgeber, op. cit., pp. 5 ff., 82 ff. 
2 Lycophr., vss. 726 ff.; cf. vss. 1008 ff. 


3 Solin. ii. 9, pp. 35 ff. Mommsen says of this: “‘Insula Ligea appellata ab 
eiecto ibi corpore Sirenis ita nominatae.” He agrees, therefore, with Lycophron; 
cf. Steph. Byz., s. v. Tépiva. The Calabrian historians (cf. apud Marincola- 
Pistoia, Di Terina, etc., p. 23) think this island is the rock between Nocera and the 
Savuto, termed Pietra della Nave. This was originally an island, although today 
it is joined to the mainland, thanks to the heavy deposits of the Calabrian fiumare. 
I have before me the map of the Italian Stato Maggiore, reduced by Kiepert to the 


‘ 


56 ANCIENT ITALY 


Pseudo-Scymnus (or his source) interrupts at Velia* his descrip- 
tion of the Italian coast on the Tyrrhenian side, to describe the 
Aeolian islands and Sicily. He then takes up the coast again,? and, 
after mentioning the regions which he calls Italia, Oenotria, and 
Magna Graecia, he enumerates the Greek cities located there. 
Commencing at Terina, he says: 

“EAAnvixas yotv rapabadratrious exe 

modes * Tépevay rpOrov, qv amruKicav 

Kpotwvdarar mporepov.3 
and proceeds to name Hipponium, Medma, Regium, etc. More- 
over, Strabo states+ that Terina was ovveyyns to Temesa; and 
Pliny, who, as is well known, follows the same source as Strabo, 
which was probably Artemidorus, makes the same observation: 
“oppidum Tempsa a Graecis Tefhese dictum et Crotoniensium 
Terina sinusque ingens Terinaeus.”’s 

There remains, however, one passage which, so far as I know, 
has hitherto been overlooked by critics, and which completely 
contradicts the above conclusion, in spite of its apparent finality. 
This is from no other than Thucydides, one of the earliest and 
most authoritative of authors, who narrates how Gylippus, having 
sailed from Thurii for Sicily in order to aid Syracuse, tapém)eu tiv 
Iradiav cal aprracbeis tr’ avéuov Kata Tov Tepivaiov KédArrov os 
éxmrvet TavTn wéyas Kata Bopéav éaotnKw@s, was forced back to 
Tarentum by the tempest.° 

There can be no doubt about the meaning of this: the Teri- 
naean Gulf of Thucydides is the Scylacine Gulf famous for its tem- 
pests, the navijragum Scylaceum of Vergil.7 How, then, shall we 
harmonize this passage with the preceding, and especially with 
that of Pliny, who gives the name “Terinaean” to the opposite 
scale of 1:800,000. The map is relatively small, and yet in front of S. Eufemia is 
plainly seen a narrow tongue of land in the shape of a peninsula. It seems to me 


that this must originally have been the island of Ligea mentioned by the two ancient 
writers just quoted. 


1 Vs. 252: 
2 Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 300. S$ Plin. N..H. iii. 5. 72; cf. 10. 95. 
3 Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 305. 6 Thuc. vi. 104. 2. 


4 Strab. vi, p. 256 C. 7 Verg. Aen. iii. 553. 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 57 


gulf, which other authors—e. g., Antiochus—call Lametine, from 
the city or river of Lametus (today the Amato), or Hipponiate 
from the city of Hipponium (Monteleone) ? 

The difficulty might be avoided by supposing that Thucydides 
mistook one gulf for the other; but who would dare employ such a 
remedy, and accuse this learned and diligent writer of error? In 
the many and valuable data on the geography of Italy and Sicily 
which he has given us it would be useless to search for the slightest 
mistake. Moreover, there are no serious arguments which would 
lead us to agree with those who deny the value of the statements of 
Timaeus, according to whom Thucydides himself visited Italy." 
The well-known description of Syracuse and its neighborhood is 
alone an excellent argument in favor of this statement.? 

Before deciding, then, that Thucydides was wrong, it is neces- 
sary to seek some means for checking his data. I believe that this 
is possible, and am convinced that Terina was neither to the west 
nor the east of the point where the two Silae ranges? sink suddenly 
and form the Lamatine and Scylacine Gulfs, but lay in a central 
position, precisely at the point where today is situated the town of 
Tiriolo, which, at a height of about 540 meters above the sea, 
dominates the two gulfs, of which either might with justice be 
termed Terinaean, and commands by its position the means of 
communication with the surrounding territory.* 

This theory is based on two series of facts. In the first place, 
Tiriolo is a conspicuous archaeological center. The numerous 
finds, from flints and stone axes to the artistic products of the best 
Greek period, suffice to show that a flourishing Greek city once 
occupied this site. The museum of Cantanzaro, which I visited 
several years ago, may to a certain extent be called the museum of 

1 Tim. apud Marcell. Vit. Thuc. 40. 52. Timaeus was, however, in error in 
asserting that Thucydides died in Italy (cf. Marcell. ibid. 52). 

2 Cf. Holm, Die Stadt Syrakus im Alterthum (ed. Lupus, Strassburg, 1887), 
pp. 114 ff., who has worked out this theme better than anyone else. 

3 See below, pp. 59, 63, for the phrase “‘the two Silae.” 

4 Calabrian writers agree that Tiriolo was an ancient city (cf. Grimaldi, op. 
cit., pp. 79 ff.), and have evolved strange theories in this connection. That it 
occupies the site of Terina has hitherto escaped notice. 


58 ANCIENT ITALY 


Terina. Even a hasty examination of this scientific institute will 
convince anyone of the truth of this assertion.‘ At Tiriolo was 
found the famous senatus consulitum de Bacchanalibus, but it is 
not possible, as will be shown, that the ancient town was the ager 
Teuranus mentioned in the inscription. A poor vicus could not 
leave so many and valuable remains, and Terina is the only name 
that can be given to the city which once flourished there and which 
is attested by numerous monuments, since no other is mentioned 
as having existed in that region. 

On the other hand, I hold that Terina played an Severin part 
in the military history of antiquity. It was founded by the inhabi- 
tants of Croton for the same reason that they either founded or 
seized both Scylacium and Caulonia on the Ionian Sea.?_ Although 
on a few occasions Croton had been the avowed ally of Sybaris3 
she was in general her rival, as also that of Locri. These two cities 
possessed maritime colonies on the Tyrrhenian coast, and pressed 
upon the territory of Croton from either side. To compete suc- 
cessfully with Sybaris, who was mistress of the valley of the Crathis 
and also of a portion of the Tyrrhenian coast, where she had 
the colonies of Posidonia, Laos, and Scidrus, it was necessary to 
fortify the entire neck of land between the Hipponiate and 
Scylacine Gulfs. The possession of this made it possible for 
Croton to carry on commerce by portages through the valleys of 
the Corace and Fiume di S. Biase, just as the Sybarites and 
Locrians crossed the peninsula to reach their colonies of Mesma 
and Hipponium.‘ 

t It would be worth while for someone, preferably one thoroughly acquainted 
with the region, to catalogue the finds made at Tiriolo. 

2 That Terino was a colony of Croton is expressly stated by Pseud.-Scymn., 
vss. 306 ff.; Plin. N. H. iii. 5. 72; Solin. ii. 10; Phleg. Trall., fr. 18, ed. Keller; 
and obscurely by Lycophron,. vss. 1008 ff.; cf. Sch. Vet. ad loc. For Caulonia see 
Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 319; Solin., Joc. cit., Steph. Byz., s.v. AvAwy. For Scylacium 
or Squillace see Strab. vi, p. 261 C. 

3 Cf. the staters of Croton on which also the name of 2¥(Baprs) is found (Head, 
op. cit., p. 80). 

4 For Laos and Scidrus see Herodot. vi. 21; cf. Strab. vi, p. 253 C. For Hip- 
ponium and Mesma see Thuc. v. 5. 3; Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 308; cf. Strab. vi, 
p- 256C. 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON . 59 


To succeed in their purpose, the inhabitants of Croton seized 
upon Caulonia on the Ionian Sea and assured themselves of full 
liberty of action toward Locri. On the Tyrrhenian side they 
either seized or allied themselves with Temesa at the mouth of the 
Savuto, which was both politically and commercially a point of 
defense against Sybaris and Locri.* In order to secure means of 
communication between the two gulfs, it was necessary to possess 
the key to the intervening neck of land; and this was found at its 
highest point, where the northern Sila range sinks rapidly to Tiri- 
olo. This position not only commanded the two gulfs, but was a 
useful point of offense and defense against the valley of the Crathis, 
where was situated Pandosia, the Oenotrian capital which soon 
became the ally of Croton.? 

The above-mentioned circumstances, and also the fact that 
on the Tyrrhenian side Croton exercised control at least over 
Temesa, show clearly that she had no need of founding Terina in 
the immediate neighborhood of that city. Moreover, Terina is 
mentioned as a place of great strategic importance even in connec- 
tion with later events. For this reason the Thurians, the succes- 
sors of the Sybarites, moved against her under Cleandridas;3 and 
when the Brettians, the earliest inhabitants of Bruttium, rebelled 
against the Lucanians and founded an autonomous government 
(about 356 B. C.), they attacked Terina first of all, and then moved 
against Hipponium, Thurii, and the other Italiot cities.4 

t The alliance between Temesa and Croton in the fifth century is known to all 
numismatists (cf. Head, op. cit., pp. 80, 96). Garrucci alone (Le monete dell’ 
Italia antica, I, pp. 147 ff., Plate CIX, no. 6) wrongly opposes the identification 
of Temesa with the city designated by the letters TE, which he believes to refer to 
Terina. His statement is confuted by the coin which he himself publishes (Plate 


CXVI, no. 27), bearing the objects common to the coins of Croton and Temesa 
(helmet, greaves, and tripod), and the legend TEM. 

2 That relations existed between Croton, Temesa, and Pandosia in the fifth 
century is known only from coins (cf. Head, op. cit., pp. 80, 90). We shall later 
discuss this matter in full detail. 

3 Polyaen. ii. 10. 1; Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 264 C.; Diod. xiii. 106. ro. 

4 Diod. xvi. 15. 2: Kal mpGrov uév Tepivay rbduv éxro\opkicarres, Sufpracay, 
recta ‘Immwyov Kal Qouplovs cal modd\ds GAXNas xeEipwoduevor Kowwhy morTelav 
ouvédevro, 


60 — ANCIENT ITALY 


This last statement is inexplicable if Terina is placed near the 
sea, but is easily understood if we admit that the Brettians besieged 
Tiriolo, which was the necessary key for those desiring free passage 
both toward Thurii, through the valley of the Crathis, and toward 
Hipponium. It was on account of this position that Alexander 
the Molossian captured Terina when he moved against the Bret- 
tians.* And finally, by holding that Terina was at Tiriolo, we 
understand why Hannibal, when compelled to leave Italy and 
return home, “destroyed Terina which he was not able to guard,” 
as Strabo says,? thus treating it in the same way as he did the 
soldiers and horses he could not take with him. These last, we 
know, he put to death before he sailed. 

Terina, therefore, is mentioned in connection with nearly all 
the military events which occurred in Magna Graecia between the 
fourth and second centuries B. c., and presents itself as an impor- 
tant strategic point. It requires no great amount of military learn- 
ing to recognize that it must have been situated in some strong 
position, and not in the level valley of the Lamato near the S. 
Biase River. Had it been located here, it would have been diffi- 
cult to understand why it should have occurred to Hannibal to 
destroy a place which was not worth guarding, and which had 
none of the strategic advantages which Terina certainly possessed.°5 

These results seem to me fairly certain, although they flatly 
contradict the preceding statements. ‘This discrepancy becomes 
still more evident from what follows. At Tiriolo in 1640 was 
found the text of the celebrated senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus 
of 186 B. C., in which it is said that it was promulgated “in agro 


t Liv. viii. 24. The words ac Terinam in the texts were proposed by Sigonio 
in place of the acrentinam of the codices. 


2 Strab. vi, p. 256 C.: Tepiva hv AvvlBas xadetdev od Suvduevos pudrdrrev dre 57 
els adrhy katamepevyer Thy Bperriav (therefore between 207 and 203 B. C.). 

3 App. B. Hann. 60; cf. Liv. xxx. 20. 

4 Cf. also Liv. xxv. 1, for the year 213 B.C. 

5 It was because there was no city and no position on the Gulf of Hipponium 
that had a situation of a strategic character, that the Romans, when they sent a 
military colony to Croton, sent another to Temesa (cf. Liv. xxxiv. 45, for the year 
194 B.C.). 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 61 


Teurano.”? Strabo says that twrép 5é trav Ooupiwv was the Tavpiavy 
x@pa.? It seems to me certain, other writers, including Mommsen, 
to the contrary, that this ager Teuranus is identical with Tiriolo. 
We need not be surprised that the Greek Tépeva or Tepiva was 
transformed into the noun from which the adjective Teuranus is 
derived. It is probable that the Greeks who occupied the place 
modified the indigenous name, sounding like Tauros (which reap- 
pears in the form Tavpav7 x@pa, and presents itself again farther 
on in Bruttium,? and produced the new form Tépeva, which is 
equivalent to the Latin fener.4’ But even were this incorrect, it 
would not be surprising if the Lucanians or the Bruttians had 
modified the Greek form to make of it an ager Teuranus. Was 
it not the Lucanians who coined the uncouth Paestum from 
Posidonia ? 

Thus it is not strange that the senatus consultum mentions a 
vicus, and not a city, at Tiriolo in 186 B.c. This circumstance 
agrees perfectly with the passage from Strabo previously quoted, 
to the effect that Terina had been destroyed by Hannibal about 
twenty years before the promulgation of this document. More- 
over, the decree was intended to suppress a religious institution 
which could have flourished only in a place having a dense and 
civilized, and even corrupt, population. From this it is evident 
that at Tiriolo, which at that time was merely a vicus, there had 
formerly flourished an important city. 

I am struck, however, by the fact that Strabo himself, who 


1 CiL, X 104. 2 Strab. vi,-p. 254 C. 


3 Cf. Plin. N. H. iii. 73: ‘‘Metaurus amnis Taurentum oppidum;” Pomp. 
Mel. ii. 68: ‘“‘Taurianum et Metaurum;” or the Tapravds oxédmedos of Ptol. iii. 
1. 9, which Calabrian writers wrongly confound with Terina. Mommsen (CI/L, 
X, 104) rightly distinguishes these places from the ager Teuranus, but without 
reason asserts that either the Tavpiavy ywpa of Strabo was not the same as this, or 
else the Greek geographer indicated such a place “‘perperam omnino.’”’ Strabo 
always describes the interior of a country with less accuracy and under general 
headings only. His words leave no doubt in my mind that he intended to record 
the ager Teuranus or Tiriolo. 


4 The form Tépecva of Pseudo-Scymnus is not an error. It is confirmed by 
several coins; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, ‘Zur Miinzkunde Grossgriechenlands, Sicilien, 
etc.,”” Numis. Zeitschr. (Vienna), X (1878), pp. 25 f. 


62 ANCIENT ITALY 


speaks of a Tavpsav7) yopa, also mentions" a Terina cuvey7s to 
Temesa. ‘There is evidently a reference to two different places. 
To harmonize these contradictory results we are led to inquire 
whether there were not possibly two cities bearing the name of 
Terina. My own opinion is that there was originally but one 
Terina, on the summit of Mount Tiriolo, and that this had as an 
offshoot a second Terina, situated near S. Eufemia on the Tyr- 
rhenian coast. I hope to show at least the probability of this theory. 

We have seen that Croton was absolute mistress of the Scylacine 
Gulf. In like manner she could also be considered mistress of the 
Gulf of Hipponium through her alliance with Temesa. Temesa, 
however, was too far distant from the gulf proper to enable her to 
derive much commercial advantage from the large and fertile 
valley of the Lamato. On the other hand, it is evident that, if 
Terina on the mountain was to flourish, she would have to seek 
an outlet by sea. This she could not find on the Scylacine Gulf, 
for there was Scylacium, the ancient Ionian city, which had also 
been obliged to recognize the supremacy or dominion of Croton. 
Her natural outlet, and one which would especially attract the 
Terinaeans on account of the greater fertility of the soil, was 
through the opposite valley, which was the largest in Bruttium 
next to that of Locrian Mesma. 

On the Tyrrhenian coast, near S. Eufemia, there was thus 
bound to arise a Terinaean emporium, just as on the neighboring 
coast arose the emporium of Hipponium, and just as on the shores 
of Sicily arose the emporia of Agrigentum, Eryx, and Segesta. 
And in the same way that these last-named cities maintained the 
names of their respective metropoles,? so, it seems to me, the 
emporium of S. Eufemia must have kept the name of Terina, and 
may well have become of greater importance than its parent-city. 
This is what happened to Eryx or S. Giuliano, which both in ancient 
and in modern times became deserted as soon as times of peace 
favored the commerce of Trapani. 


1 Loc. cit. 


2 For the élveov of Agrigentum and the éumédpiov of Segesta, see Strab. vi, 
p. 272 C. For the éumébprov of Eryx, see Diod. xxiv. 11. 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 63 


Just what causes developed and made prosperous the city 
which we shall henceforth call the maritime Terina, at the expense 
of the Terina of the mountains, it is not easy to determine, since the 
material for building up the history of Magna Graecia, always 
scanty, is especially so for the period between the destruction of 
Sybaris and the time of the Dionysii. A little light is thrown on 
the subject by combining the slight literary evidence with the data 
derived from coins. 

The coins of Terina from the beginning of the fifth century bear 
witness to the prosperity of this colony of Croton, while the legend 
NIKA attests the triumph of the political policy of Terina and 
Croton together. The coins from the middle of the same century 
also tend to show that Terina as well as the Siceliot cities com- 
memorated the fall of the tyrants.?_ Finally, those from the fourth 
century prove that, together with Regium, Mesma, and Locri, she 
participated in the political events of the period. 

We know that Dionysius I succeeded in subjugating all of — 
the Greek cities on the flanks of the southern Sila (i. e., Regium, 
Caulonia, and Scylacium, colonies of Croton, and Hipponium), and 
that he favored his ally Locri by practically giving her the territory 
of the conquered cities, with the exception of Regium. Later 
Croton herself was captured by the great tyrant. We have no 
record cf the fate which befell Terina in this period, but certainly 
she must have suffered the same lot as her sister cities and her own 
metropolis. On the thirds of the Terinaean staters of the time of 

t Head, op. cit., p. 96; e. g., Fig. 64. I do not hesitate to attribute the legend 
NIKA to joint victories of Terina and Croton. I shall treat elsewhere of these 
victories, and of the juridical relations existing between the autonomous city, which 
struck its own coins, and the metropolis. Here I merely wish to note that from the 
coin of Terina of the middle of the fifth century, on which is seen a fountain and 
the legend AI'H (Garrucci, op. cit., p. 169, Plate CXVII, no. 5), it might be inferred 
that Terina at that time was near the sea, since the fountain seems to be the source 
of the Bagni S. Eufemia, the Aquae Ange of the Itineraries. This identification, 
however, is anything but certain; and if it were, what would it prove? On the 
coins of Eryx is sometimes seen the crab, the symbol of the port, placed at the foot 
of the mountain, and Terina may possibly in a similar manner have recorded a 
monument which she possessed in her emporium. 


2 Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques (Amsterdam, 1882), p. II, 0. 44. 


64 ANCIENT ITALY 


Dionysius Tis frequently seen the Sicilian triskele.* This confirms 
our belief that Terina also recognized the supremacy of Syracuse. 

It remains to discover at what period the city situated on the 
summit of the mountain lost her power, and there is one circum- 
stance to be noted which seems to refer to this. When, after 380, 
Dionysius had conquered the Italiots at the Helorus, and subju- 
gated Hipponium, Caulonia, and Scylacium, he decided to con- 
struct a wall on the isthmus between the Gulfs of Scylacium and 
Hipponium, in order to defend his new acquisitions against the 
Lucanians, the very invaders in common with whom he had made 
war upon the Italiots a short time before. We know from Strabo, 
who has preserved this statement, that he was compelled to desist 
from this undertaking by those who lived beyond the isthmus.? 

Who were those who prevented Dionysius from carrying out 
his undertaking? Strabo himself tells us this when he asserts that 
the idea of the wall came to Dionysius while he was making war on 
the Lucanians, and it is evident that they are the ones who are 
meant. Certainly it could not have been the inhabitants of Croton, 
recently humiliated by the defeat at the Helorus, and weakened by 
the loss of their colonies of Sylacium and Caulonia. They were 
themselves threatened with the loss of their autonomy and liberty, 
and had neither the heart nor the strength to oppose the tyrant. 
Thus the Lucanians themselves must have seized the mountain 
Terina between 389 and 379 B. c.3 and in this way have prevented 
the construction of the wall, which would have stood in the way of 
their plans for future invasion and conquest. It is also probable 
that at that time the inhabitants of the mountain Terina took 
refuge in their emporium by the sea, which itself then became an 
autonomous city and commenced to coin its own money.‘ 

t Head, op. cit., p. 98. 

2Strab. vi, p. 261 C.: GAN’ éxddvoay of éxrds éredObvTes; cf. Plin. N. H. 
ili. 10. 95. 

3 Croton was not taken by Dionysius till about 379 B. c.; cf. Unger, Sitzungs- 
berichte of the Academy of Munich, 1876, pp. 569 ff. The attempt to build the 


wall across the isthmus therefore falls between 389 or 388, when Caulonia and 
Hipponium were captured (Diod. xiv. 106 ff.), and 379 B.C. 


4 The periplus of Pseud.-Scyl., p. 12 (composed, as we know, about the middle 
of the fourth century), ignores the Brettians and places Terina in Lucania. 


TERINA, THE COLONY OF CROTON 65 


This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the Teri- 
naean staters of the Corinthian type and weight, which have cor- 
rectly been compared with the similar staters of the same period 
from Locri and Regium, which, according to the generally accepted 
opinion, were struck when the Corinthian Timoleon freed Syracuse 
from the tyrants.‘ These staters show that during the rule of the 
two Dionysii Terina endured the same fate as did the other vassal 
cities of Bruttium, such as Hipponium, Caulonia, Regium, Mesma, 
and Locri. She was perhaps nominally added to the territory of 
Locri, on a par with Caulonia and Hipponium.? It seems evident 
to me that these staters were struck at maritime, and not at moun- 
tain, Terina. Toward the middle of the fourth century (c. 356 
B. Cc.) this latter city was seized from the Brettians by the Luca- 
nians. The Brettians were descendants of the earliest inhabitants 
of the country, and still possessed Terina, although for short periods 
it had been taken from them by Alexander the Molossian, and 
by Hannibal. 

That the emporium of the Terinaeans had become of even more 
importance than their mountain city, even before the destruction of 
the latter by Hannibal, is shown by the fact that Lycophron (about 
the middle of the third century B. c.) placed Terina on the Tyr- 
rhenian coast. The increase of power of the maritime city may 
possibly date from the time when Alexander the Molossian con- 
quered the mountain metropolis (between about 335 and 331 B. C.), 
for Pseudo-Scymnus, possibly following Ephorus, calls Terina 

t See Head, op. cit., p. 86. Imhoof-Blumer (‘‘Miinzen Akarnaniens,” Num. 
Zeitschr., Vienna, X [1878], pp. 6 ff.) notes that Bruttium is one of the six regions 
in which coins of the Corinthian type appear. The cities represented are Locri, 
Mesma, Regium, and Terina. The numerous points of resemblance between the 
coins of Locri, Hipponium, and Terina are well known. It will suffice to recall 
the fourth-century coins of Hipponium and Terina with the name and image of the 
goddess Pandina. 


2 Cf. Diod. xiv. 106 ff. Mesma is not named among the cities conquered by 
Dionysius, but Diodorus states that he stationed 4,000 Mesmaeans at Messana, 
when he founded there a military colony (Diod. xiv. 78, for the year 396 B.C). 
This shows, as other writers have already noted (cf. Marincola-Pistoia, Opuscoli, 
p- 215), that Mesma had fallen into the hands of the tyrant, who, in like manner 
transported to Sicily the inhabitants of Caulonia and Hipponium. 


66 ANCIENT ITALY 


mapaQaXattia,* With this in mind it becomes even more probable 
that at the time of Timoleon and Dionysius II, rather than at that of 
Dionysius I, and subsequent to the Lucanian invasian, the empo- 
rium of the Terinaeans developed into an important city at the 
expense of the metropolis, which, although it continued to exist, 
gradually lost the character of a city and assumed that of a single 
fortress. Finally, through Hannibal, it lost even this distinction, 
and became a simple village, the ager Teuranus of the senatus 
consultum.? 

If the theories which we have set forth in the foregoing are 
true, or at least worthy of being taken into consideration, in the very 
word ‘“Tiriolo,” which seems derived from the complete form 
“Tereniolum,”’ we find a phonetic proof of the decay and loss of 
power which befell the once flourishing Italiot city.s 

1 It is true that Pseud.-Scymn. (see 305 ff.) also uses the term wapa@adarrila of 
Hipponium, which was situated somewhat less than ten kilometers from the sea, and 
that geographers describe such cities as Eryx and Agrigentum, which are really 
several kilometers inland, as being situated on the coast. On the same principle 
the Terina which was situated at Tiriolo might perhaps also be said to be on the 
coast, since it dominated both gulfs. It should be remembered, however, that 


Terina is about twenty-five kilometers from the sea in a straight line. It is also 
possible that Pseudo-Scymnus may here follow Timaeus instead of Ephorus. 


2 We do not know whether the Terinaean Elysius came from the mountain or 
from the maritime city. He is mentioned by a fourth-century writer, Crantor of 
Soli, who is the source of Cic. Tusc. i. 115, and of Plut. Ad Apol. 14. We may 
possibly see a citizen of the maritime Terina in that Philip who was put to shame 
at Olympia by Demosthenes (cf. Pseud.-Plut. Vit. Dem. 23). 

3 The words of Apollonides of Nicaea (apud Steph. Byz., s. v. Tépeva= 
Miller, F. H. G., IV, p. 310), ékade?ro 5é kal weyddn ‘EXAds, would seem to allude 
to the great importance of Terina in antiquity; but there is some doubt about the 
correctness of the passage. Much more important in this connection are the numer- 
ous archaeological finds from the neighborhood of Terina. For these see Notizie 
degli Scavi, 1881, p. 172; 1882, p. 390; 1883, p. 137; 1898, p. 274. 





Fic. 4.—Coin of the 
Alliance between Sybaris 
and Posidonia. 


V 
THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 


Siris, on the coast of Chonia in Magna Graecia, was held to have 
been founded first by the Trojans and later by the Ionians of 
Colophon. The Achaean founders of Metapontum, Sybaris, and 
Croton are said to have besieged and captured it, and to have 
slaughtered its inhabitants at the foot of the altar of Athena Polias.* 
It is further stated that the Athenians, who even in the West repre- 
sented the rights and traditions of the Ionians, wished to refound 
the city and seize its rich territory. When, therefore, according to 
Herodotus, on the eve of the battle of Salamis the Spartan Eury- 
biades refused to follow the counsels of Themistocles, he threat- 
ened to go with his fellow-citizens to the Siritis in Italy, which, 
according to an oracle, was to be repopulated by Athenians.? The 
Siritis became an object of contention among the colonists who 
under the auspices of Athens had founded Thurii, the successor of 
Sybaris, and on that account Siris did not rise from its ruins with 
its ancient name, but when, in 433 B. C., the Tarentines had brought 
about an agreement concerning the possession of the Siritis, the 
inhabitants of Siris were transferred a short distance to Heraclea. 
Both contending parties were granted the right of inhabiting the 
Siritis, and Heraclea, which had been founded under the auspices 
of Tarentum, was considered as its metropolis. 

It is not my intention here to discuss the passages which relate 
to the Siritis and to Heraclea in the following period, but rather to 

t Tim. et Arist. apud Athen. xii, p. 523 d; Strab. vi, p. 246 C.; cf. Lycophr., 
vs. 989, and Sch. Vet. ad loc.; Pseud.-Arist. De mir. ausc. 106, p. 840 Bk.; Iust. * 
xx. 24; Steph. Byz., s. v. IoAlecov; cf. Etym. magn., s. v. Also see my Storia 
della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 225, and E. Ciaceri in his noteworthy comment on the 
Alexandra of Lycophron (Catania, 1901, pp. 281 ff.). The opposite opinion has 
been set forth by Beloch (Hermes, XXIX [1904], pp. 604 ff.). 

2 Herodot. viii. 62: dvadaBévres rods olkéras kometueba és Lipev rv év IraXla, 
hep huerépyn Té érre €x wadatod Eri, kal Ta Adyia Aéyer ba’ Huéwy adrhy det kricHjvat. 

3 Diod. xii. 36. 3. 

67 


68 ANCIENT ITALY 


examine in some detail those which refer to the origin of Siris 
—a city whose*beauty, according to a fragment preserved by 
Athenaeus, was compared by Archilochus of Paros with the less- 
pleasing charms of the island of Thasos.t Archilochus is said to 
have been a contemporary of the Lydian Gyges.? If, however, as 
ancient writers affirm, it is true that Siris was founded by Ionians 
who were fleeing from the domination of the Lydians, it follows 
that, if the Ionian Archilochus of Paros did not participate directly 
in the colonization of Ionian Siris, as it is said the poet Eumelus 
did in that of Syracuse, and Herodotus in that of Thurii, he at 
least had occasion to see the Italiot city at its very beginning. 

It is this question of Ionic origin which has recently become an 
object of dispute among students. It is asked how Siris could have 
been an Ionic city, when its coins from the middle of the fifth 
century bear inscriptions in the Achaean alphabet; and how 
Ionians from Ionia could have come to Italy, although, with the 
exception of the Phocaeans, during the following century no other 
people from that region founded colonies in the West. The Colo- 
phonians inhabited a Mediterranean city, and it is even doubtful 
whether they ever took part in such colonization. Everything, 
therefore, would lead us to believe that Siris also was of Achaean 
origin. When we read in Herodotus that Themistocles threatened 
to go to the Siritis as to a land which from early times had belonged 
to the Athenians, this is explained, we are told, by the fact that 
Herodotus wrote at the time when Thurii and Tarentum contended 
for the Siritis. A drama of Euripides, MeAavirman Aecparis, is 
said to have been the occasion for the final localizing of the myth 
of Metapontus, husband of Siris, who founded the city of Meta- 
pontum in Italy and gave rise to the legend that Siris was of 

t Archil. apud Athen. xii, p. 23 d; fr. 21 in Bergk, P. L. G., II4, p. 389. A 
Siris which existed in Paeonia is mentioned by Herodotus (viii. 115; cf. v. 15) in 
connection with the military operations of the Persians. ‘The explicit statement by 
Athenaeus that the Siris mentioned by the poet was the one in Italy prevents us 
from thinking that he was alluding to the Paeonian city of the same name, which 
was nearer Thasos. I do not understand why the visit of Archilochus to Siris is 


not mentioned by modern writers on Greek literature, such as Christ, Geschichte d. 
griech. Litt., 34 ed., p. 135, and Croiset, Hist. de Ja litt. grecque, II, p. 179. 


2 Archil., fr. 25; cf. Herodot. i. 12. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 69 


Metapontine origin. We are told, in addition, that the tomb of 
Calchas, who is said to have been buried at Colophon, cannot be 
cited as evidence of the tradition that Siris was founded by the 
Colophonians, because the myth was due merely to the confusion 
of the Greek Calchas with the hero Kadyos, whose tomb was also 
pointed out in Daunia.? 

Such, in sum and substance, are the observations made by 
Beloch a few years ago on the origin of Siris. The standing of 
Beloch as a critic is undisputed, but in this case his statements do 
not seem to be borne out by the passages in ancient literature, as 
I hope to show in the following pages. 

Little needs to be said concerning the pretended arrival of the 
Trojans on the coast of the Siritis, where they are said to have 
founded a city similar to Troy, which received the name of [lod éeov. 
Certain modern archaeologists show a tendency to accept such 
legends, and possibly they will some day be able through new dis- 
coveries to substantiate the available literary and linguistic data 
and to persuade those who oppose them. For the moment it will 
suffice to recall that the tradition of the arrival of the Trojans in 
Latium was preceded by others referring to their arrival, not only 
on the coast of the Siritis, but also in the region where Achaean 
Croton was founded. Still other versions stated that they came 
to the Cyrenaica, where as early as the fifth century Pindar had 
localized the same Antenor who according to later writers came to 
the Veneti. It is likewise known that the Sicilian sources of 
Thucydides spoke of fugitive Trojans who came to the extreme 
western portion of the island inhabited by the Elymians. In 
support of such arrival of the Trojans ancient writers even gave 
monumental evidence. The historian Timaeus, who in this re- 
spect also preceded our scientists and archaeologists, observed that 
Trojan vases were preserved in the temple of the Penates at 
Lavinium; and the same Timaeus, or another writer who was 
either the direct or the indirect source of Strabo, derived confirma- 
tion for the coming of the Trojans to the Siritis from the presence 


t Beloch (op. cit.) accepts the observations of Stoll and Immisch in Roscher, 
Ii, x; .col..923- 


70 ANCIENT ITALY 


of a statue of Athena Polias, which was preserved even in historic 
times, and which displayed Trojan characteristics. In speaking 
of a miracle which was said to have been worked by this statue, 
Strabo shows himself displeased by such reports,* and also dis- 
plays irritation at having to record that in many other localities, 
such as Rome, Lavinium, Luceria in Daunia, and in the Siritis, 
statues of Athena of ostensibly Trojan origin were shown. 

Ancient writers who believed thoroughly in such accounts may 
perhaps have accused Strabo of being hypercritical, but we of the 
present day have no more difficulty in believing Strabo to be right 
than we have in agreeing with those who are skeptical concerning 
the many teeth of St. Apollonia, the numerous pieces of the true 
Cross, and the portions of the garments of the Madonna, which in 
many places are preserved as sacred relics. The conclusion is 
obvious that the statue of Athena which was held to be of Trojan 
origin in reality belonged to the oldest period of Greek art, together 
with statues from the hands of such workmen as Daedalus, which 
are mentioned by the Greeks as existing in their ancient colonies, 
and even among the Veneti and other indigenous peoples of Italy. 
The fact is that the present state of our knowledge forbids our criti- 
cizing the stylistic and chronological judgment of the ancients, and 
that the problem is impossible of solution. 

Of more importance for our purpose is the fact that the earliest 
inhabitants of the regions where later Greek Siris and Croton arose, 
were the Chones, whose name recalls that of the Chaones of 
Epirus. Both the Chaones and the Chones were in antiquity 

t The fact that the miracle to which Strabo, Lycophron, and Trogus Pompeius 
allude, is said to have occurred, according to the first-mentioned writer, at the time 
when the Ionians seized Siris, and, according to the others, when the Achaeans 
slaughtered the Ionians, may be due as much to different narrations of the miracles 
worked by the goddess as to the inexactness of the epitomizer of Strabo. These 
chronological variations do not make it certain that the sources were divergent, for 
in the last analysis the common source was possibly ‘Timaeus. Moreover, the same 
contempt with which Strabo refers to this fact is displayed by the opinion which 
both he and his model Polybius held of Timaeus, whom Strabo especially avoids 
consulting directly, and quotes as little as possible. ‘The hypothesis of Chavannes 
(De Palladii raptu (Berlin, 1891], referred to by Beloch, of. cit., p. 607, n. 1) con- 


cerning the shape of the eyes of archaic statues which seem to have the eyes closed 
deserves attention. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS m1 


judged to be Trojans, and in addition we find among both peoples 
mention of the Pelasgians. But even though the Trojan question 
is one which the majority of the best modern critics regard as the 
result of late literary and political speculation, the mention of the 
Pelasgians takes us back to real historical beginnings. Nothing is 
more certain than the presence of the early Pelasgians in Epirus, 
the region where the Chaones were the earliest and most powerful 
inhabitants; and there is, on the other hand, no reason for doubting 
the statement that the indigenous slaves of the Italiots were termed 
Pelasgians.* And just as the Chaones came from Epirus to Italy, 
so too may have come the Pelasgians, who together with the Cha- 
ones may have been the earliest emigrants from the coast of Epirus, 
which was less than a day’s sail from the shores of the Sallentine 
peninsula. It is with the arrival of these early emigrants that the 
name of Chaonic Pandosia is connected. This was situated not 
far from Heraclea, and near the place where the so-called Ionians 
founded the city of Siris. 

It now remains to decide whether the founders of Siris were 
really Ionians, as is asserted by Aristotle and Timaeus, and whether 
they came as exiles fleeing from the yoke of the Lydians. Before 
attempting to give an adequate answer to this question, it is, how- 
ever, necessary to consider briefly the source of the statements which 
have hitherto been mentioned. ‘There exist today two noteworthy 
tendencies among students of antiquity: one, to believe everything 
which Greek and Roman tradition relates concerning the periods 
of Italian history for which we have no contemporary writings; 
and the other, to deny faith in the few periods of Greek history for 
which, even though we have no writings of contemporary his- 
torians, we have at least the works of the poets who narrated real 
events, and whose productions were either repeated or made use of 
by later prose-writers. 

The fact that the Colophonian origin of Sybaris is mentioned by 
both Aristotle and Timaeus cannot be dissociated from the fact 
that Timaeus seized every occasion to attack his predecessors, and 
that Aristotle was among those whom he bitterly refuted, as is 


t Steph. Byz. s. v. Xlos. 


72 ANCIENT ITALY 


shown by the harsh manner in which he criticizes him in connection 
with the origin of Epizephyrian or Italian Locri.t When, there- 
fore, Timaeus agrees with Aristotle, it is not because he repeats the 
latter’s opinions, but because he was following a common source 
which he held to be authoritative. 

In seeking out this common source, we find ourselves able to 
present a hypothesis which even on close examination seems most 
reasonable. We know that the Colophonian poet Xenophanes 
narrated the history of his native land, and that in a poem of two 
thousand lines he also set forth the events connected with the 
foundation of Velia, in which he participated. Moreover, from a 
fragment of his writings we learn that in one of his parodies, in 
speaking of the invasion of the Persians,? he alluded to Velia. It 
is, therefore, most probable that in his verses and in the history of 
his native land he would have alluded to the colonization of the 
Colophonians in the Siritis. We have seen that the verses of the 
Parian Archilochus made reference to the beauty of Siris, and it 
seems reasonable to suppose that the Colophonian Mimnermus, 
who related the arrival of Diomede among the Daunians, also 
took occasion to localize at Siris the myth and the Colophonian 
cult of Calchas. Thus writers who were contemporary with the 
foundation of Siris, and who were citizens of Ionian colonies, or 
even of Colophon itself, alluded, if not with certainty, at least with 
great probability, to the origin of Siris, and we understand how 
Aristotle and Timaeus, two of the greatest and most diligent 
scholars of Greece, were able to draw upon authoritative works 
for their accounts of the origin of this Italiot city. To depreciate 
the value of their statements would without doubt overstep the 
bounds of just criticism. It is clear that even though the critic 
should not believe too readily in events which are not verified by 
the direct or indirect authority of contemporary historians, he 
should not, without sufficient reason, brand as spurious, or as the 


t Tim. apud Polyb. xii. 5 ff.; and Athen. vi, pp. 264, 272. Cf. my Storia 
della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 199 ff. 

2 Diog. Laert. ix. 2. 20; Xenoph. apud Athen. ii, 54 e. 

3 For Diomede and the Daunians see Mimn., fr. 22, in Bergk, P. L. G., II4, 
p- 33. Cf. my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 352, 574- 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 73 


“result of late literary speculation, accounts which rest on the state- 
ments of authors who were contemporary with the events narrated, 
or who learned of them from those who either participated in, or 
were witnesses of, the deeds recorded. 

Since there seems no reason for doubting the authority of the 
statements referring to the arrival of the Ionians on the shores of 
the Siritis, we may discuss with greater confidence the value of the 
observations made by the critic who denies the importance of such 
evidence. It is known that the Ionians of Ionia spread by prefer- 
ence along the shores of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontis, 
and the Black Sea; but it does not follow from this that they 
wholly refrained from voyaging westward. Aside from isolated 
facts—e. g., the discovery of Tartessus attributed to the Samian 
Coleius—such circumstances as the participation of the Samians, 
about 530 B.C., in the colonization of Cale Acte in Sicily, and the 
excellent commercial relations which existed between the Ionians 
of Miletus and the Achaeans of Sybaris, show that the West had 
also occupied their attention. Of still greater importance is the 
fact that when Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, about 543 B. C., 
undertook the conquest of the Ionian cities, Bias of Pirene advised 
the Ionians to abandon the coast of Asia Minor entirely and to go to 

- Sardinia—advice which Herodotus thought to be most prudent." 

In this case their love of their native land proved stronger than 

that of independence. The Phocaeans, however, who had already 

entered into favorable commercial relations with the West, and 
had founded Massilia (modern Marseilles) and Aleria (in Corsica), 
decided, at least in part, to turn again toward those shores; and, 
after a brief sojourn in Corsica, they betook themselves to the 

Ionian-Chalcidian Regium, and, with the aid of that city and of 

Posidonia, founded Velia on the coast of Oenotria, near the 

modern Cilento.? 

Among those who founded Velia was a citizen of Colophon, the 
poet Xenophanes, who established the famous Eleatic School. 
This proves that other Greeks from Ionia were united with the 
Phocaeans. Moreover, that Xenophanes was not the only Colo- 


1 Herodot. i. 170. 2 Herodot. i. 163-70. 


74 ANCIENT ITALY 


phonian to join the Phocaeans is perhaps shown by the fact that 
the river beside which Velia was located was given the same name 
as that of a stream near Colophon, although it is of course possible 
that the resemblance is only fortuitous." Of more importance is 
the fact that when confronted with the danger of Persian domina- 
tion, Xenophanes and the Phocaeans acted in exactly the same 
manner as, according to Aristotle and Timaeus, did the Colo- 
phonians when threatened with an analogous peril at the time of 
the Lydians. There seems no reason for doubting this latter state- 
ment, especially since we learn from Herodotus and other author- 
ities that although the inhabitants of Miletus and Smyrna succeeded 
in repelling the forces of the Lydian Gyges, Colophon fell into his 
hands.? 

Another confirmation of the account of Aristotle and Timaeus 
is apparently found in the fact that the Ionian-Parian Archilochus 
visited the region of Siris. Archilochus, as we know, was a con- 
temporary of Gyges, whom he praised on account of his riches. 

It has been objected that the Colophonians inhabited an inland 
city. This is true, but Notium, the port of Colophon, was distant 
only about nine miles, and Beloch has evidently overlooked the 
passage in Strabo which states that in the earliest times the Colo- 
phonians had a powerful fleet at their disposal.3 And since there: 
appears no reason for doubting the Colophonian origin of the 
inhabitants of Siris, it seems probable that the cult and tomb of 
Calchas at Siris, which the source of Lycophron mentions, refer 
also to such origin. I have elsewhere treated of the introduction 
of this Colophonian myth into the Siritis,4 and would merely note 
here that the counter-arguments of Beloch are without value. Thus 
he is wrong in thinking, with Stoll and Immisch, that the Calchas 
of Daunia (the modern Capitanata) is the Daunian hero Calchus, 


1 The name “Hales” or ‘‘Halentus” (from which the form “Cilento” is 
derived) may perhaps be indigenous. It is the name of a small stream near Fran- 
cavilla, on the Adriatic coast, at a point not reached by the earliest Greek coloni- 
zation. 

2 Herodot. i. 14. 

3Strab. xiv, p. 642 C: éxrjcavro 5€ more kal vautixhy dtiddoyor dtvaycy 
Koroguwnor. 

4See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 575; <f. Ciaceri, op. cit., p. 281. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 75 


since, as will be seen later (chap. xv below), Calchus was connected 
with the Daunians of Campania. Moreover, the myth of Calchas, the 
conqueror of the Lucanians, which Pliny mentions,‘ has nothing to 
do with the Siritis and with the better-known and larger Lucania, 
since these Lucanians were the inhabitants of Daunia or Capi- 
tanata, while the Lucanians or Leucanians were located in Luceria 
or Leuceria. 

Of even more importance than the myth of Calchas is the fact . 
that at the time of Themistocles, about 480 B.c., the Athenians 
considered the Siritis as belonging to them and to that Ionian 
branch of which they had gradually come to regard themselves as 
the propagators, representatives, and protectors. As Beloch says, 
it is easy enough to avoid the consideration of any piece of evidence 
by affirming that it did not arise till a much later period than the 
one in question, but in such a case the burden of proof always rests 
upon the one who denies the evidence. The fact that the Athe- 
nians sent to Thurii a colony which was in name pan-Hellenic, but 
in substance Attic, and that this from the very beginning struggled 
with Tarentum for the possession of the Siritis which lay between 
them, does not oppose, but rather favors, the assertion of Hero- 
dotus that from 480 at least that region was considered the property 
of the Ionian peoples, of which Athens was regarded as the metropo- 
lis. Unless the Ionians had at some early period attempted to 
seize at least some portion of the Italian coast on the side toward 
the Ionian Sea, it would not have been possible for such pretensions 
to be made. 

The name of the Ionian Sea may naturally be left out of the © 
question, since etymologically it has nothing to do with the name 
of the Ionians. Even early writers, such as Theopompus, con- 
nected it with an Illyric Ion, and others brought it into relation 
with a like-named individual of Italian origin.? The important 
fact is that the Ionians were the first to visit the shores of southern 
Italy for the purposes of commerce and colonization. Starting out 


t Plin. N. H. iii. 104; cf. my Storia della Sicilia, etc., loc. cit., and my Stora 
di Roma, I, 2, p. 303. 
2 Theopomp., fr. 140 M. 


76 ANCIENT ITALY 


from the harbors of Chalcis and Eretria in Euboea, they first estab- 
lished themselves on Ischia and later at Cumae, which latter even 
by Thucydides is considered the earliest of all the Greek colonies 
in the West. It does not seem possible, however, that the Euboe- 
ans, who had spread along the coast of Sicily and Campania, and 
had founded Regium and Zancle, did not also possess some commer- 
cial settlement on the shore of the Ionian Sea. Ancient writers 
expressly state that Scylacium—the modern Squillace—on the 
coast of Bruttium, was of Attic origin; and, even aside from such 
pretensions, the form of the name is Ionic. It is by no means 
improbable that, even before the colonization and possession of 
Scylacium by Croton, Ionian navigators from Euboea had landed 
both there and at other points on the same coast. There is like- 
wise no reason for doubting the statement that the Euboeans also 
occupied the coast of Epirus opposite Italy. 

The colonization of the Achaean enemies of the Ionians, and 
also that of the Locrians, Phocaeans, and Tarentines, caused the 
traces of the Euboean commercial settlements to disappear. This 
is rendered all the more probable by the fact that, in the beginning 
at least, the Euboeans seem to have aimed at the possession of 
commercial landing-places, while other peoples, and especially the 
Achaeans, sought to secure new and stable possessions, which they 
made agriculturally prosperous before developing them commer- 
cially. It often happened, however, that even the Achaeans were 
obliged to occupy themselves actively with the interchange of their 
produce with other regions, and with meeting the competition of 
' the Chalcidian cities commanding the Strait of Messina. 

We are therefore not surprised at finding a colony of Colopho- 
nians at Sifis, in a region later occupied by Achaeans; nor is there 
anything strange in the statement that a colony of Rhodians 
existed at Siris, when we remember that the inhabitants of Rhodes 
and Cos, while on their way to Sicily, may easily have taken occa- 
sion to land at some point on the shore of the Ionian Sea, just as, 
for example, the Spartan Dorieus halted there when on his way 
to Eryx, and at a later period also the Spartan Cleonymus.' It is 


 Strab. vi, p. 264 C. I have discussed the extension of Rhodian colonization 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS "7 


easy to understand the statement concerning the arrival of the 
Ionians, when we bear in mind that this occurred in the first half 
of the seventh century—that is to say, shortly after the founding of 
the Achaean colonies of Croton and Sybaris. Moreover, the 
declaration that an Ionic colony existed at Siris is borne out by 
the reference to the scarcity of Greek colonists on that coast, and 
by the invitation which, according to Antiochus, was extended by 
the Achaeans of Sybaris to the other colonists of their nationality 
to occupy the region where Achaean Metapontum later arose." 
The opinion that Siris was by origin an Ionic city was universally 
held in antiquity, which explains why it was accepted by both 
Lycophron and Trogus Pompeius. Indeed, the epitomizer of the 
latter alludes clearly to the non-Achaean origin of Siris when he 
says that it was attacked and besieged by Metapontum, Croton, 
and Sybaris, these cities having formed an alliance and decided to 
pellere ceteros Graecos Italia. With this statement harmonizes 
another by the same author, to the effect that in this war the inhab- 
itants of Siris were aided by the Locrians, who thus in their turn 
drew upon themselves the wrath and attacks of Croton. 

From the above, Siris does not seem to have been an Achaean 
city, in which case it remains to explain why its earliest staters, 
dating from the second half of the sixth century, bear the well- 
known legends Zpivos and Iv€ces. The explanation which first 
suggests itself is that given by the numismatist Head, who supposes 
that the Achaean cities which attacked Siris forced it to enter into 
their league.? This hypothesis, however, is open to one rather 
serious objection. From the words of Herodotus mentioned above, 
and attributed by him to Themistocles about the year 480 B. c., it 
appears that Siris was to be founded anew by the Athenians, and 
therefore must have been previously destroyed. In 576 or 572 B. c. 
Damasus of Siris aspired to the hand of Agarista, daughter of 
Cleisthenes of Sicyon,? and in 511 B. c. Sybaris was destroyed. It 


in the West in my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 569 ff. Here I wish merely to 
note that the doubts expressed by modern writers are purely hypothetical and not 
based on specific facts. 

t Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 264 C. 2 Head, Hist. num., p. 69. 

3 Herodot. i. 127; cf. Busolt, Griech. Geschichte, I7, p. 666. 


78 ANCIENT ITALY 


therefore seems natural to suppose that the destruction of Siris 
occurred some time between these two dates, since the downfall of 
Sybaris must have occurred after the attack made on Siris by the 
three Achaean cities, Metapontum, Sybaris, and Croton. On the 
other hand, both the episode of the fifty inhabitants of Siris who 
were barbarously put to death at the altar of Athena Polias, and 
the fate which befell the same Siris a few decades after 511 B.C., 
make it clear that the envy and hatred existing between the various 
Achaean cities was inextinguishable. The same fact appears from 
the account of the uprisings which occurred successively in the 
different Achaean cities against the aristocratic societies of the 
Pythagoreans. : 

Two different conclusions may be derived from the above. It 
may be held that between 572 and 511 Siris was conquered by the 
Achaeans and transformed into one of their cities, and was later 
destroyed; or else that the coins bearing Achaean characters 
belonged to a city which used the alphabet of the neighboring 
cities, but was of different race. The first hypothesis is not abso- 
lutely impossible. After their victories over their foreign enemies 
the Achaean cities were torn by internal wars with their neighbors. 
After the war against Siris, Achaean Croton attacked Sybaris, 
although it too was Achaean. As we learn from the text of Jus- 
tinus, the Metapontines were the most directly interested in the 
war with the neighboring Siris, and the material at our disposal 
offers no real objection to the theory that they had first made Siris 
their colony, and that this was later overthrown as a result of the 
jealousy of the neighboring and powerful Achaean cities. Possibly 
the silence of ancient writers regarding the history of the cities of 
Magna Graecia is due to the fragmentary condition of our texts, in 
which we find recorded only a small portion of the events which 
really occurred; but, at any rate, this silence enjoins the greatest 
caution in our criticism. 

Instead, therefore, of indulging in hypotheses which are easy to 
sustain and easy to oppose, we prefer to accept the second hypothe- 
sis, and ask ourselves how it was possible that an Ionian city, such 
as Siris seems to have been, should have made use of the Achaean 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 79 


alphabet on its coins. This phenomenon seems strange enough 
when considered by itself, but is easily explained when approached 
from an economic and political, as well as from an epigraphical 
and numismatical, standpoint. 

Siris was an Ionian city, but she was pressed as in a vise between 
the Achaean cities of Metapontum and Sybaris. In her maritime 
undertakings she had greater freedom of action, but in her commer- 
cial transactions by land she found herself confronted by the 
indigenous populations, and was compelled to carry on her com- 
merce in that direction with the peoples of the peninsula which had 
also entered into commercial relations with her neighboring cities. 
Material and political interests must soon have prevailed over those 
pertaining merely to race, and when, about 433 B.c., an end was 
made to the war between Thurii and Tarentum for the possession 
of the Siritis, it was agreed that those from both cities who so 
desired might inhabit that region in common. Thus the Siritis 
became more than ever a border district, instead of a powerful 
center for independent and national organization. Moreover, it 
seems very probable that the mixed racial character typical of the 
Siritis in the fifth century existed also in the sixth and seventh 
centuries. The account of Amyris of Siris, the father of Damasus 
and renowned for his wisdom, who was sent to Delphi with an 
embassy from Sybaris to inquire of Apollo the fate of that city, 
shows that about 572 B. c., even before Siris and Sybaris had com- 
menced to coin money, there existed the best of relations and prob- 
ably a political alliance, between the Achaean and the Colophonian 
city. Unless some such alliance had existed, Siris would never 
have permitted one of the wisest of her citizens to inquire of the 
protecting deity of colonies the fate of her neighbor and rival." 
Moreover, it is only by means of a strict alliance between these 
two cities that we can explain the perfect resemblance in the types 
of their coins bearing the figure of a bull looking backward. The 
resemblance in this case is much greater than that existing between 

tI combine the account of Athen. xii. 520 b with that of Herodot. vi. 127, 


where it is related that Damasus of Siris, who aspired to the hand of Agarista, was 
“Apudpios Tod copod Neyouévov mais. 


80 ANCIENT ITALY 


the coins of Sybaris and those of any other of the cities in the 
Achaean League. | 

On the other hand, when we speak of the Achaean, Dorian, and 
Ionian cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily, we must not think of 
cities inhabited only by those belonging to the people in question, 
with no mixture of outside elements. Indeed, the opposite is 
really the case. Doric elements existed in such Chalcidian colc- 
nies as Himera and Zancle-Messana, and even the Sybarites 
received colonists coming from Troezen. Achaean Croton gave 
shelter to the Samian Pythagoras, and Achaean colonists were 
found at Chalcidian Cumae.’ Moreover, this corresponds with 
the statement concerning the mingling of races in such Ionian 
colonies as those in the Cyrenaica. It is, indeed, easy to find 
similar parallels in the history of colonization of any period.? 

The existence of an Achaean element in Siris from the sixth 
century may have favored the coining of money bearing letters 
which were also Achaean; but it must be admitted that reasons of a 
commercial nature may at the same time have contributed to this 
fact. In the second half of the sixth century it is known that the 
preponderance of the Achaean element, together with a political 
and commercial understanding between the cities of that national- 
ity, brought about the common system of weights and coinage 
which tradition attributes to Pythagoras. Such was the importance 
of this commercial league that even Tarentum, which was not 
Achaean, but a rival of the Achaean cities, at the very beginning 
of its coinage (which corresponds chronologically to that of the 
cities to which it was hostile) accepted, if not the Achaean alphabet, 
at least the unity of weight. 

The desire to reach definite results from the language and 
alphabets employed on ancient coins may easily lead to error. We 
know, for example, that the Elymian cities of Sicily were not Greek, 
and yet Greek legends appear even on the earliest coins of Elymian 
Segesta. Certainly Rome was not a city of Greek origin, and yet 
it was counted by the Greeks as a weds “EXAnVG, and even in its 
most ancient coinage we find its name written in the Greek alpha- 


1 Cf. Paus. viii. 24. 5. 2 See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 276. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 81 


bet. The same thing is also true for the Samnites of Capua, 
whose earliest coins display legends which are now Greek and now 
Oscan.* 

To give a list of all the Italian cities which made use of other 
alphabets than would be expected from the nationality of their 
inhabitants, would require a great deal of space. Before leaving 
the subject, however, it should be noted that, if we follow the 
tradition as given by Trogus Pompeius, and judge by the coins 
bearing the inscriptions NQAAIO2 or NQAAIQN, we should say 
that Nola was a Greek city, just as we should term Greek another 
of the Campanian cities which has on its coins the letters YTIANO 
and YFIETEN; by other traditions, on the contrary, we are informed 
that Nola was a city of the Ausonians, and the coins with the 
Oscan legends YDINA or AMIDY teach us that this latter city also 
was not of Greek origin.?, By way of comparison may also be 
mentioned the example of Sicily, where one often finds coins of 
Siculian and Campanian cities bearing Greek inscriptions. Still 
more to the point is the case of Oenotrian Pandosia, near Croton. 
The coinage of this city shows the existence of a political alliance 
with Achaean Croton, and bears Greek inscriptions written in the 
Achaean alphabet.3 . 

Force of circumstances, and political and commercial interests, 
carried in antiquity, as always, greater weight than racial consid- 
erations. Certainly no one would deny the well-confirmed reports 
concerning the Rhodian origin of Agrigentum and of its founders 
from Gela, just because in their earliest inscriptions these cities 
display a preference for the alphabets prevailing in cities of Chal- 
cidian origin. For like reasons of location and political relaticns, 


t Kaurdvos and Campanus are derived from Capua. To suppose, as certain 
critics do, that these coins refer to other Campanian cities is contrary to the teachings 
of both grammar and history. It is possible, however, that such coins were either 
made at Naples or were made by Greek artists from that city. 


2 For the coin legends see A. Sambon, Les monnaies antiques de I’ Italie (Paris, 
1904), I, pp. 295 f., 315 f. For Ausonian Nola see Steph. Byz. and Suid., s. v. 
Whether the statement is really derived from Hecataeus is another question. On 
the other hand, for Nola as a Chalcidian colony see Iustin. xxii. 1. 13; Sil. Ital. xii. 
*61. For the Daunian character of Hyria or Urina see chap. xvii, below. 


3 Head, Hist. num., p. 81. 


82 ANCIENT ITALY 


one understands why the Italian Lucanians, when brought into 
close contact with the Sabine populations of the interior and with 
the Greeks from the coast, at one time employed on their coins the 
legend AOYKANOM, and at another the Greek AEYKANQN, while 
the neighboring Brettians, although being of indigenous descent, 
because they came into almost exclusive contact with the Greek 
cities along the coast which they had conquered, used only coins 
bearing the Greek legend BPETTIQN. , 

According to Justinus, the Achaean cities of Metapontum, 
Sybaris, and Croton assailed Siris because she was of different race. 
It is, however, easy to see that the racial question was subordinate 
to motives of a far different character. It is true that racial reasons 
exercised a certain influence in the Peloponnesian war and among 
the colonists of Magna Graecia; but even Thucydides notes, in 
connection with the participation of Greeks of various origin in 
the struggle between the Athenians and Syracusans, that such 
reasons were overshadowed by others of a very different nature.' 
In like manner, the war of the Metapontines and of the other 
Achaean cities against Siris was not brought about by hatred of 
a city of different origin. The participation of Amyris of Siris in 
an embassy of Sybarites finds a significant parallel in the fact that 
the Ionian Pythagoras of Samos succeeded for nearly forty years 
in morally ruling the city of Croton, and later that of Metapontum. 
The Achaean cities were far from being closed to the influence of 
other peoples, as is confirmed by the excellent relations which 
existed between Sybaris and Miletus, commenting on which Hero- 
dotus noted that there had never been two cities so closely united 
by bonds of friendship.? 

Even if, as the ancient staters of Siris seem to suggest, this Ionic 
colony had been penetrated, by an Achaean element, there is no 
reason for thinking that the war against the Sybarites was occa- 
sioned merely by reasons of nomen or race. The true reason for 
the war, as is also brought out by Beloch, is shown by the staters 

« Thue. vii. 57. 1: ob xara Sixny, Te wGddov ovde Kara Evyyévecav wer’ AAAMAwY 
ordvres GAN’ ws éExdoroas THs Evvrvxlas H Kara Td Evupepov H dvdyKy eoxev. 


2 Herodot. vi. 21. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 83 


of Siris, the reverse of which reveals the existence of a political 
alliance between that city and the city of Pyxus. 

Our present information does not enable us to decide whether 
Pyxus, which later became the Buxentum of the Romans, was an 
Achaean city, or whether it was founded by Siris; nor are we able 
to determine whether it was the alliance with this city, as much as 
that with Sybaris, which led Siris to make use of the Achaean alpha- 
bet and monetary standard in the coins which are common to the 
two cities. We know only that between the years 530 and 510 B. c., 
which mark chronologically the limit of the period during which 
such coins were struck, the two cities had entered into an alliance 
which was very similar to those existing between Croton and Te- 
mesa, and between Sybaris and Posidonia. To Lenormant more 
than to any other writer belongs the credit for bringing out the 
political importance of such monetary leagues between the Italiot 
cities situated on the Ionian and Tyrrhenian coasts. From the 
coins of these places, together with the information derived from 
ancient writers, it is evident that there existed active commercial 
rivalry either between the Ionian, Chalcidian, and Achaean cities, 
or between the Chalcidian and Achaean cities alone. By means 
of Regium and Zancle the Chalcidians could regulate as they 
desired the passage of merchandise through the strait, and the only 
course open to the colonies of other nationalities to secure an outlet 
for their wares was to traverse the mountains of Bruttium and by 
means of portages to seek the Tyrrhenian coast. In this way they 
were enabled to derive profit from the extensive exchange of 
merchandise which was carried on between Greece and the shores 
of Campania, Latium, and Etruria, and which was later extended 
to include Liguria and Iberia after its discovery by the Samians 
and Phocaeans. 

Locri, shut in as it was between Chalcidian Regium and Achaean 
Croton, solved the problem by passing over the Sila and founding the 
colonies of Medma and Hipponium. Croton seized Temesa, and . 
the dispute for the possession of that city was the cause of the war 
between Croton and Locri. Sybaris secured easy communication 
with the Tyrrhenian side by means of her colonies of Laos and 


84 ANCIENT ITALY 


Scidrus. It was an advantage to have these factories as near as 
possible to the shores of Campania, Latium, and Etruria, as thus 
the necessary sea voyage was made much shorter, and the danger 
of meeting hostile ships was proportionally diminished. Moreover, 
the greater the advantage obtained by a city located near the 
regions where trade was carried on, the greater was the commercial 
loss to the rival situated at a greater distance from such regions. The 
exceptional commercial prosperity of the Sybarites was in part due 
to the ease with which they were enabled to transport their wares 
by land. The colonies of Posidonia and Silarus, near the border 
of Campania, account very well for the intimate and friendly rela- 
tions which at the end of the sixth century existed between Sybaris 
and the Etruscans, who at that time were masters of Campania, 
and who controlled the valley through which flows the modern 
Tusciano, which still records their name.t That Siris and Meta- 
pontum must also have participated in this commerce which ren- 
dered prosperous both Sybaris and the Chalcidian cities, requires 
no demonstration. But, while the valleys to the west of Metapontum 
‘merely led among the rough ridges of the Lucanian mountains, the 
inhabitants of Siris were enabled to ascend the valley of the like- 
named stream (today the Sinni) and, by passing through the 
valley where Semuncla was situated, and over the passes to the 
south of Monte del Papa, to descend toward Pyxus on the opposite 
coast.” 

The Sirites accumulated great wealth, and soon shared the 
reputation of the Sybarites for the effeminacy and luxury of their 
mode of living. So rich, indeed, did they become that one of their 
number was able to aspire to the hand of Agarista, the daughter of 
Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon.’ It is at present impossible to say 
whether these riches were derived from commerce by sea, or from 
cultivating the Italian soil. Certainly the prosperity of Siris must 
have excited the envy of Metapontum, which, it is true, was mis- 
. tress of a rich and fertile region, but which was not favorably situ- 
ated topographically for international and maritime commerce. One 

t See my Storia della Sicilia, etc. I, p. 532. -—«- See chap. ii, above. 

3 Herodot. vi. 127; Arist. and Tim. apud Athen. xii. 523 d. 


THE ORIGIN OF SIRIS 85 


also understands how to the hatred of Metapontum and Sybaris was 
added that of Croton, which was not directly interested in contend- 
ing with Siris by land, but which could not be on friendly terms 
with a city which was the ally of its rival Locri on both the Ionian 
and the Tyrrhenian sides. 

The absolute lack of later references to the relations between 
Locri, Regium, and Siris does not permit us to indulge in further 
reconstructions. It is, however, possible to throw some light upon 
the nature of these mutual rivalries and interests by examining 
briefly the history of Pyxus during the fifth century. From a brief 
statement in Diodorus, and from a passage in Strabo, we learn that 
Micythus, the tutor of the sons of Anaxilaus of Regium, founded a 
colony in that locality in 471 B.c.’ Pyxus, the ancient ally of 
Siris, had probably likewise been destroyed not many years before 
511 B.C., when Sybaris was overthrown. The intervention of 
Regium in this district cannot be explained merely by the natural 
desire of that city to increase the number of her factories along a 
sea which was being rendered more and more unsafe by the con- 
stantly increasing audacity of the Etruscan pirates, against whom 
Anaxilaus of Regium had already fortified the rock of Scylla. It 
should, in reality, as I have elsewhere attempted to show, be brought 
into relation with the alliance which Regium contracted with 
Tarentum at about this period. Metapontum had been the prin- 
cipal cause of the war which was waged by the Achaean cities 
against the neighboring Siris, but she enjoyed only for a very short 
time the hoped-for advantage from the destruction of her rival,? 
and became herself subordinate to the hegemony of Tarentum, her 
powerful neighbor. For the sake of military security and addi- 
tional border protection, Tarentum extended her rule to embrace 
Achaean Metapontum, and even stretched out her hand as far as 
the Siritis. At that time, however, the war with the Iapygians 
prevented her from taking part in the busy commercial programme 


t See chap. ii, above. 


2 Siris is called the daughter of Metapontum (Schol. in Dionys. Perieg., vs. 461), 
or is even confused with Metapontum (Steph. Byz., s. v. Meramévriov), which may 
perhaps be explained by supposing that she was conquered by the Metapontines. 


86 ANCIENT ITALY 


of the neighboring cities, and from reaching the Gulf of Pyxus by 
means of the valleys to the west. 

The possession of Pyxus on the part of Regium, together with 
the alliance with Tarentum, made it possible for the Regians, at 
least in part, to neutralize the effect of the dangerous commercial 
competition of Syracuse, which had for some years seriously 
affected the Chalcidian cities which commanded the strait. To 
judge from the information which has come down to us, the propo- 
sition of Micythus for an alliance between Tarentum and Regium 
was badly received by the Regians, and the colony which he founded 
at Pyxus was but short-lived and not very successful. This, how- 
ever, did not come about through any lack of political shrewdness 
on the part of the Arcadian Micythus, nor was it owing to the 
cleverness of the Deinomenid Hiero of Syracuse, who removed 
from Regium the wise and faithful tutor of the sons of Anaxilaus. 
The real reason must be sought in the universal change of political 
conditions. The invasions of the Iapygian Peucetians on the one 
hand, and of the Etruscans and even Samnites on the other, shook 
the territorial rule of Magna Graecia to its foundation. The 
struggle between the Persians and Greeks in the East, and between 
the Phoenicians of Carthage and the Greeks of Sicily in the West, 
created other centers of political control. With the exception of 
Tarentum, nothing remained for the cities of Magna Graecia but 
to follow in fear and trembling the progress of the Siceliot cities, 
and especially that of Syracuse, which now aspired to commercial 
and maritime supremacy over the entire Italian coast. 





Fic. 5.—Coin of the Alliance between Siris and Pyxus. 


VI 
THE HARBOR OF SATYRIUM 

Livy, in speaking of the time when M. Livius and the Romans 
were besieged in the citadel of Tarentum (210 B.c.), and of the 
aid which was brought them by D. Quinctius, when he set out 
from Regium with twenty ships and coasted along the shores of 
Croton and Sybaris (or rather Thurii)’ says that Democrates, with 
an equal number of ships of the Tarentines, met this fleet about 
fifteen miles from the city ad Sapriportem. A battle ensued, and 
of the Roman ships some were sunk, others fled and became the 
prey of the Metapontines and Thurians, while still others, and 
among them those carrying the provisions, were carried out to sea 
by the wind. 

So far as I know, no one has as yet succeeded in locating this 
place ad Sapriportem. Weissenborn, for example, states that the 
place is unknown save for this mention, and adds the useless 
remark that it should not be confused with the Sacriportus in 
Latium. For my own part, I suspect that the text is corrupt, and 
that in place of ad Sapriportem we should read some such phrase 
as ad Satyri portum. 

In the ancient oracle mentioned by Antiochus in connection 
with the founding of Tarentum it is said: “I have given you 
Satyrium and the rich fields of Tarentum for your home.”? Accord- 
ing to other authors, Satyrium was the name of the place where the 
Spartans founded Tarentum.3 Nevertheless, from the statements 
of these writers it is not clear whether Tarentum was founded on 
the exact spot which was formerly called Satyrium,*+ or whether 

t Liv. xxvi. 39. 6. Livy here says “Sybaris” in place of ‘Thurii,”’ just as 


Varro (D. R. R. i. 44. 2) in speaking of the territory of Thurii writes: ‘‘in Italia, in 
Sybaritano.” 


2 Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 279 C. 

3 Diod. viii. 21; Dion. Hal. xix. 1. v; Paus. x. ro. 8. 

4 This may be be deduced, for example, from another oracle mentioned by 
87 


88 ANCIENT ITALY 


this name was used of the entire coast where Tarentum arose." 
In favor of the latter interpretation may be mentioned the circum- 
stance that Coelius Antipater in the fifth book of his annals says 
that Satyrium was a place near Tarentum, which had received its 
name from Satura puella quam Neptunus compressit.2 Even 
today, at a place about twelve miles in a straight line south of 
Tarentum, there exists on the shore a place termed Torre di Saturo. 
Twelve miles in a straight line corresponds closely enough to the 
fifteen miles along the coast mentioned by Livy. 

Moreover, Torre di Saturo is near the place where the above- 
mentioned naval battle must have occurred. The reason for this 
is that the harbor of Tarentum and also its approach had been in 
the hands of the enemy‘ since the time when Hannibal managed 
to take the ships of the Tarentines across the isthmus. Certain 
Romans, among them the praetor P. Cornelius, at once boldly 
attempted to supply the fortress with provisions which they brought 
by sea,’ but the Punic fleet which arrived in the following year 
(211 B.C.) prevented all approach to the citadel from that side.® 
It is true that this fleet departed shortly afterward,’ but as is 
shown by the assault of Democrates, the sea was guarded by the 
Tarentines, and D. Quinctius could hardly have hoped to run the 
blockade of the port with his relief ships. It was not fifteen miles 
to the west of Tarentum that he must have encountered the Taren- 
tine fleet, but fifteen miles to the south, since it was in that direction 
that the Romans were free to act, as is shown by the account of 
the victory by land which they won soon after.’ Livy states 
expressly that Quinctius was not expecting the enemy. Since the 
Diod., loc. cit.: %0a Tdpavra mood ért Zarvplov BeBadra. For the relation 
between Taras and Satyrium see also my Storia di Roma, I, p. 611. 

t Cf. Dion. Hal. xix. 1. 6. 2 Coel. Antip. v, p. 35 P. 

3 Cf. Verg. vii. 801. For the archaic Greek vases found at Leporano near the 
Torre di Saturo see Notizie degli Scavi, 1903, p. 33- 

4 Liv. xxv. 11.5: “post dies classis instructa ac parata (i.e., by the Taren- 
tines) circumvehitur arcem et ante os ipsum portus ancoras iacit.” Cf. Polyb. 
viii 36. 

5 Liv. xxv. 15. 4. 7 Liv., zbid.; Polyb. ix. 11. 


6 Liv. xxvi. 20. 7. 8 Liv. xxvi. 39. 20. 


THE HARBOR OF SATYRIUM 89 


mouth of the harbor was not free, it seems evident that, after 
coasting along the territory of Croton and Thurii, instead of keep- 
ing on along the shore, he took the sea route leading to Torre di 
Saturo. 

We have seen that Coelius Antipater mentioned Satyrium as 
near Tarentum, in the fifth book of his annals—that is to say, in 
the work in which he narrated the second Punic war. The fifth 
book, however, according to the arrangement of the fragments in 
Peter, instead of referring to events which occurred in 212-210 B. C., 
had to deal with the period after 208. I see no reason in this case 
for accepting the order as given by Peter. Fragment 35 might 
as well be placed before 33 (205 B.C.) and 34. Moreover, frag- 
ment 29, which is assigned to the third book, really refers to 208 
B.c. The arrangement of Peter hinges on the identification of 
fragment 30 with Livy’s narration of the battle of Sena (207 B. c.) 
—an identification which even to Peter seems uncertain and to me 
seems very problematical. 

Another fault of the arrangement of Peter is the assignment to 
book ii alone of the numerous and important events which occurred 
between the battle of Cannae (216 B. c.) and the march of Hanni- 
bal on Rome (211 B. C.), while to books iii, iv, and v are attributed 
the relatively less important and numerous events between that 
period and 204 B.c. In the diffuse writings of Livy, six books are 
given up to the first series of events and three to the second. Coe- 
lius was also held to be a voluminous writer,! and must have made 
much the same distribution of his material. According to all 
probability, book v, as well as books iii and iv, must have been 
given up to the events which occurred between the battle of Can- 
nae and that of Sena; while the legend of Satyra, beloved of 
Neptune, and possibly also the parallel myths of Phalanthus and 
Taras, were set forth by this “embellisher of Roman history”? 
not after 209, when Tarentum was reconquered by Fabius Maxi- 
mus, but rather where he related the taking of the city by Hannibal 
in 212, and the subsequent events up to the Roman conquest in 
209. From this point of view, Coelius must have acted like, for 

« Cf. Cic. Brut. 26. 102. 21Gf. CienDe- leg1.12.-0: 


go ANCIENT ITALY 


example, Polybius, who spoke of the history and topography of 
Tarentum on the occasion of its loss and recapture by the Romans.* 
The difference between Coelius and Polybius in this as in every 
other portion of their histories lies in the fact that the Greek his- 
torian sought occasion to recall the early but authentic history, and 
furnished useful geographical and topographical references, while 
the deceitful? Roman annalist, in speaking of the same subject, 
sought to please his readers by recounting the well-known and 
ancient Greek legends, which Polybius* disdained to collect and 
repeat. 

t Polyb. viii. 31 ff.; x.i.  * 

2 Liv. xxviii. 25. 1, 27. 14. 

3 Cf. Cic. De divin. i. 29. 9=fr. 71, Peter. 

4E. g., Polyb. iii. 47. 


5 For Saturum near Tarentum see in addition Serv. ad Verg. Georg. ii. 197; 
. tbid., iv. 335. _ 


VII 


THURIAE 


In 1868 Mommsen! published for the first time a bronze cadu- 
ceus found near Brindisi, on which the following two lines were 


found: 
AAMOSION OOYPIQN 


VMOMIMEAVERB MOIMOMAA 


i. €., Sapdotov @ovpiwyv and Sapudciov Bpevderivwv. The second 
line is to be read from right to left, and in it the letter has the value 
of =. Ishall not here discuss the importance to be attached to 
this difference in direction of reading the two lines, of which one is 
in ordinary, and the other in archaic, Greek, as I have already 
treated of this in my studies on the Iapygians. Following Momm- 
sen, they were published by Kaibel,? who concluded that the two 
inscriptions were incised by order of two different communities, 
that of the Thurii and that of the Brendesini. Kaibel, however, 
adds: ad quodnam tempus hoc illarum civitatum commercium sine 
joedus pertineat nescio. It seems to me that the problem may be 
at least partially solved by reading for the word BOTPION, not 
@ovpiwv, but Govpr@v,3 and by recognizing in the name, not the 
city of Thurii in Campania, as do Mommsen and Kaibel, but 
rather the Thuriae mentioned by Livy, which, as we learn from 
that author, was situated not far from Brindisi. 

Livy relates for the year 302 B.c. that when the Spartan 


1 See Hermes, III (1869), pp. 298 ff. 

2 Inscript. Graec. Sic. et It., No. 672. 

3 It is hardly necessary to note that either form may be read on the caduceus, 
and that the form SQovpla, the name of the fountain where Thurii arose, and also 
of one of the mwAaretac of that city (cf. Diod. xii. 10. 6), appears as the name of 
Thurii on its coins (cf. Garrucci, op. cit., II, Plate CVII, Fig. 7; Thuc. vi. 104; 
vii. 33), Where, as is observed by C. Miiller (Geogr. Graec. Min., I, p. 19) # Govpla 
indicates, not the territory of Thurii, but the city itself. In like manner probably 
the 4 Qovpla in Strab. vi, p. 280 C., indicates the city and not the surrounding 
territory. 

91 


92 ANCIENT ITALY 


Cleonymus arrived on the coast of Italy, Thurias urbem in Sallen- 
tinis cepit, but that when the consul Aemilius arrived on the spot, 
he fled, and Thuriae redditae veteri cultort, Sallentinoque agro. pax 
parta. In other annals, however, Livy states that the dictator 
Iunius Bubulcus was sent to the country of the Sallentines, and 
that Cleonymus departed without contending with him. He adds 
that Cleonymus sailed around the promontory of Brundisium, and 
was carried by the winds into the midst of the Adriatic, with the 
coast of Italy on his left and that of Illyricum on his right, and that 
having traversed the Adriatic, he finally arrived at Patavium, the 
native town of Livy, who for this reason made his digression. 
Livy then goes on to say that in the temple of Juno at Patavium 
were preserved the rostra of the ships, spoils of the victory obtained 
over Cleonymus and his Laconian followers." 

It now remains to discover the location of this Thuriae which 
Livy mentions. Certainly it was not at the extremity of the Sal- 
lentine peninsula, since, aside from the fact that Livy uses the 
word Sallentini to indicate generically the inhabitants of the region 
in the neighborhood of Tarentum,? it is not probable that the 
Romans at the time in question could have pressed as far as that 
region. ‘The Romans were then allies of the Lucanians, and it 
seems natural to admit that Thuriae was situated in Peucetia. 
From the account in Livy, however, it appears to have been near 
Brindisi, but to the south of that city and on the Sallentine penin- 
sula; otherwise Livy could not have stated that Cleonymus, when 

t Liv. x. 2. 

2It is true that Livy (ix. 43) says for the year 307: “cum... . Sallentini 
hostes decernerentur,’’ but, as has been noted above, the term ‘‘Sallentini’’ is also 
used by him to indicate the region situated in general in the neighborhood of 
Tarentum (xxv. 1) and Brindisi (xxiii. 48. 3; cf. xxiv. 20 16). Thus Livy employs 
the name ‘Calabria’? to indicate, not the northern part of that peninsula, but 
rather the southern portion, where, as we know from other writers, the Sallentini 
lived (cf. xlii 48.7). In the same manner Plin. N. H. ii. 240 records the “in 
Sallentino oppido Egnatia,”’ which was really in Peucetia. 


3 Diod. xx. 104 (303 B.C.) states: kara dé rhv "IraXlav Tapavrivo. rddeuov 
éxovres mpds Aevxavods kal ‘Pwyualovs, in connection with the summoning of 
Cleonymus by the Tarentines. Possibly the statement (Pseud.-Arist. De Mir. 
Ausc. 78 [75]) referring to the Peucetian Aulus who tried to poison Cleonymus 
alludes to relations between that leader and Peucetia. 


THURIAE 93 


after the capture of Thurii he proceeded northward in the Adriatic, 
had on his left the coast of Italy and on his right that of Ilyricum, 
after he had passed beyond the promontory of Brindisi. 

It seems, however, that in this detail Livy should be corrected by 
Diodorus, who, after speaking of the deeds of Cleonymus, and 
stating that he came from Corcyra, where he had received notice 
of the rebellion of the Tarentines, and arrived in Italy in a region 
inhabited by barbarians (the Sallentini of Livy), narrates that 
Cleonymus seized a city (our Thuriae), laying waste its territory, 
and afterward captured a fortress called Triopium (70 caXovpevov 
Tpromvov), taking three thousand prisoners. There then followed a 
nocturnal incursion on the part of the barbarians of that region— 
whom Diodorus does not expressly name, but who were the Sal- 
lentini of Livy, the allies of Rome—who killed over two hundred 
of his men and made about a thousand prisoners. In addition to 
this disaster, there came up a tempest which destroyed twenty ships 
along the shore where Cleonymus was encamped. Overcome by 
such misfortune, Cleonymus returned with his army to Corcyra.' 

Taken as a whole, these accounts agree with those of Livy. 
Diodorus, however, differs from Livy in that he makes Cleony- 
mus return to Corcyra, and not go at once toward the northern 
part of the Adriatic. It would seem that in this he must be right. 
Livy passes over in silence the relations existing between Cleony- 
mus and Tarentum, which were nevertheless of great impor- 
tance for the history of Rome in her dealings with that city. He 
alludes briefly to the achievements of Cleonymus among the Sal- 
lentini, but speaks at great length of what he accomplished at 
Patavium. Diodorus, on the other hand, who was under the 
guidance of Greek sources in relating these events, and who has 
the point of view of a compiler of universal history as conceived by 
a Greek, treats with much more detail of the relations of Cleony- 
mus with Tarentum and the barbarians of that region. If he 
does not take the trouble to tell us that the Romans were among 
the barbarians who harassed the Spartan leader, we must not 
accuse him of negligence. For the earliest period of Roman his- 


t Diod. xx. 104 ff. 


94 ANCIENT ITALY 


tory his references to that people are dry and meager in the extreme, 
and, as every student knows, this adds not a little to their value. 
Moreover, he had shortly before asserted that the Tarentines 
summoned Cleonymus to their aid against the .Lucanians and 
Romans. Cleonymus had seized Corcyra before coming to Italy, 
and had left a garrison on that island.* After losing in Italy a 
considerable portion of his followers and fleet, he naturally wished 
to return to Corcyra before undertaking an expedition along the 
Adriatic shores. 

This fruitless wandering of Cleonymus along the entire Adriatic 
coast as far as the country of the Veneti—nulla regione maris Hadri- 
atici pros pere adita, as Livy says—cannot be explained as the work 
of a man who, having become master of Corcyra, was unwilling, 
as we learn from Diodorus, to enter into an alliance with either 
Cassander or Demetrius, because he aspired to obtain control of a 
more extensive Greek country.?, The fact is that Corcyra had 
been taken from him. We learn from Diodorus? that two years 
after these events (300 B. Cc.) the Corcyrans were besieged by Cas- 
sander. This means that before 300 they had been freed from the 
tyranny of Cleonymus, who, having lost this rich city, and having 
been repudiated by the Tarentines and become the enemy of the 
Lucanians and of Agathocles of Syracuse, had nothing better in 
view than to attempt to secure a territory among the barbarian 
inhabitants of the Adriatic. 

Accepting (as I accept) the statement of Diodorus regarding 
the departure of Cleonymus from Italy toward Corcyra, it does 
not seem that the Thuriae of Livy could have been located south 
of Brindisi, although there is no way of determining precisely from 
this reference just where the city lay, since we have no other 
mention of the Triopium to which Diodorus refers. In the Tabu- 
la Peutingeriana there is mention of a locality on the Adriatic 
coast to the south of Brindisi and Bari, termed Turenum, and cor- 


1 Diod. xx. 105. 


2 Diod. xx. 104: Stavoobuevos dpunrnply robry Te Té6rw xphoacbat [i.e., of 
Corcyra] kal rots rept rhv ‘EdAdda mpdyuaciy épedpeverr. 


3 Pomp. Trog. Prol. 15. 4 Diod. xxi. 2. 1. 


THURIAE . 95 


responding to the modern Trani. We know from Livy that 
Thuriae was situated in the neighborhood of Brindisi, and there is 
a possibility that it should be looked for in the form Turenum.* 
The probabilities, however, are in favor of locating it, not to the 
south, but to the north, of Brindisi, in the direction of the neighbor- 
ing Peucetia. This is made likely, among other things, by the 
friendly relations existing at that time between the Lucanians, who 
had pushed along the coast in that region, and the Romans. In 
the caduceus I see a further confirmation of the account of Livy, 
and it seems much more probable that the city which was an ally 
of Brindisi—it was for this reason that they had the caduceus in 
common—should have been situated in the neighborhood, rather 
than in distant Lucania. For this reason there seems to attach 
little value to the corrections of the text of Livy to Rudiae or Uria, 
as some writers have suggested.? 

I am far from thinking that the resemblance between Thuriae 
and Thurii is entirely accidental. Even a superficial examination 
of the coinage of the Apulian cities shows many points of contact | 
with those of Tarentum, Metapontum, and, above all, Tarentine- 
Thurian Heraclea.2 To this should be added that in Peucetia 
are found certain coins which are generally, and it seems correctly, 
assigned to Grumum near Bari. These coins have on the reverse 
a figure of a bull exactly similar to that on the coins from Thurii, 
and were struck about 300 B.c. It has been suggested by Miner- 
vini that they belonged to some colony of Thurii.4 In the same 

t The ancient form ‘Thuriae” could bear the same relation to the modern 


“Turiae” that the “‘Thagines” of Calabria in Plin. N. H. iii. 96 does to the 
“Tacina” of the itinerary of Auborius, 114. 

2 See, e. g., Weissenborn, ad loc.; Mommsen, Rém. Geschichte, 1°, p. 374. 

3 It is useless to dwell longer upon so well-known and self-evident a fact. It_ 
should merely be noted that the coin which Imhoof-Blumer (Monnaies grecques 
[Amsterdam, 1882], p. 12, Plate I, Fig. 14) rightly attributes to Apulian Herdoniae, 
and which closely resembles the monetary type of Metapontum, is connected with 
the fact, as this author has pointed out, that Hannibal, when he destroyed that 
city, sent its inhabitants to Metapontum and Thurii (Liv. xxvii. 1. 14). 

4 Garrucci, op. cit., II, p. 114, Plate XCV, Figs. 40, 41. Minervini (zb7d.) 
referred them to Grumentum in Lucania. Head, Hist. num., p. 39, also refers 
them to the Grumbestini of Peucetia (cf. Plin. N. H. iii. 105). 


96 ANCIENT ITALY 


manner, a coin from Thurii struck about the beginning of the third 
century shows such resemblance to one from Caelia as to authorize 
the hypothesis that this Peucetian city in the neighborhood of 
Grumum, which as a rule imitated the types of Heraclea, in this 
case copied the Thurian example.’ 

During the fifth century Thurii exercised a certain influence in 
Campania, and it seems that the above data would justify us in 
asking whether she did not seek an outlet for her commercial activ- 
ity in Apulia also. If the Thuriae near Brindisi was really a colony 
of Thurii, it is not difficult to discover the motive which led to so 
close an alliance. 

‘Polybius tells us that ‘from the Iapygian promontory as far as 
Sipontum, whoever sailed toward Italy from the opposite shores 
landed at Tarentum,” and adds that at that time “the city of 
Brindisi had not as yet been founded.”? ‘Tarentum was probably 
no older than Brindisi, but her jealousy prevented the rival city 
from becoming a commercial emporium. On the other hand, it is 
known that Tarentum did not regard the growth of Thurii favorably. 
The new city was hardly founded before it found itself implicated 
in a war with Tarentum for the Siritis,3 and about 282 B. c., when 
the Romans came to the aid of Thurii which was besieged by the 
Lucanians, the two cities were bitter enemies. Admitting that at 
the end of the fourth century Thurii had founded on the coast of 
Apulia a colony having the same name,* we understand why this 


t Garrucci, op. cit., II, Pl. XCV, Fig. 29; cf. Plate CVII, Fig. 15. 
2 Polyb. x. 1; cf. Mommsen, CIL, IX, p. 8. 
3 Diod. xii. 23, for the year 444 B.C. 4 App. Samn. 7. 


5 That a Greek city should found a colony having the same name is not com- 
mon, but is not without examples. We are thus reminded of the two Megaras, of 
Euboea in Sicily, of Piraeus, the Athenian colony in the Pontus, etc. 

Corcia, in his Storia di Napoli, III, p. 493, says that the Thuriae of Livy 
should be sought in the modern Turi near Conversano, and that we should naturally 
expect to find it near Caeliae and Grumum. It seems evident from the account in 
Livy and Diodorus, however, that it was a maritime city. Much more valuable is 
his opinion that in the Tutini of Mediterranean Calabria (Plin. N. H. iii. 105) we 
should recognize the Thurini. In this case we should be led rather toward Brindisi 
than toward Bari. The fact that Pliny enumerates the Tutini (or Thurini) among 
the Mediterranean peoples does not detract from the value of these observations 


THURIAE 97 


colony should have entered into an alliance with Brindisi. Both 
were inspired by the same hatred of Tarentum, and it was not 
possible for them to prosper until after the downfall of their rival, 
and the victory of the Romans. 


since Pliny often makes mistakes of this nature. Thus among the Mediterranean 
peoples of Apulia he mentions the Irini (or Hirini), the well-known inhabitants of 
the maritime Hyrium on the slopes of Mount Garganus; the Dirini, who inhabited 
the site of the modern Monopoli on the coast (see Guid. 27, p. 467, Parthey; cf. 
An. Rav. iv. 31. 7; Vv. 1. 2); and the Veretini of the Sallentine peninsula. Pliny 
likewise errs in attributing to Calabria, or the northern portion of the Sallentine 
peninsula, the Butuntinenses and Grumbestini, who in reality belonged in Peu- 
cetia. He may therefore have been deceived in regard to the Tutini or Thurini. 


VIII 


THE EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS TO 
ITALY 


One of the obscure points in the chronology and political history 
of Rome and Magna Graecia is the account of the deeds of Alexan- 
der of Epirus, the prince who aimed at forming a vast state in 
southern Italy at the same time that his nephew, Alexander the 
Great, was assailing the Persian empire. 

The references regarding this are very scanty: The history of 
the relations between the Molossian leader and the Tarentine 
state received very slight mention from the Romans, who in writing 
their own history made little of the resistance of the peoples they 
conquered, and narrated merely the facts which served to bring 
out their own glory. Moreover, practically everything in this nar- 
ration is a subject of dispute, from the year of the arrival of Alexan- 
der in Italy to that of his death, and from the fundamental charac- 
teristics of his undertaking to the list of the conquered cities. It is 
not even clear from what source is derived the dramatic account of 
the death of this leader, whichis preserved in Livy,’ and as has 
often been observed, the statements concerning the year of his 
arrival and that of his death are erroneous. Livy says that he 
came to Italy in 341 B. c., while from other data of contemporary 
authors it appears that he could not have arrived before 336, the 
year in which he married Cleopatra. Livy also says that he died 
in 327, and erroneously assigns to that year the founding of Alexan- 
dria. From writers of the period, however, it is determined that 
his death occurred about 330.? 


t Liv. viii. 3, 17, 24; cf. Iust. xii. 2. 12; Strab. vi, pp. 256, 280 C. 


2 For his marriage to Cleopatra in 336 see Diod. xvi.g1. He was, however, in 
Italy by the summer of 333 B. C. (see Arrian. iii. 6. 7) and hefore November (see 
Arrian. ii. 11; ili. 6). Aeschines (Im Ctesiph. 242) mentions his death as if it were a 
recent event in 330 (cf. Iust. xii. 1. 4. 31). The statement of Livy (viii. 24. 7) con- 
cerning the continual rains leads one to think of the late autumn of 331 or the 


99 


100 ANCIENT ITALY 


Some have attributed these errors to a mistake-on the part of 
Livy in calculating the Olympiads; others have sought to justify 
the dates given by referring them to the date established for the 
foundation of Rome by the other annalists who did not follow the 
era of Cato or of Varro. A third, and possibly better course is fol- 
lowed by those who find in this portion of Livy one of those 
numerous chronological duplications, as a result of which, for 
example, the same war with the Volscians was twice narrated, once 
at Satricum and once at Privernum, and the taking of Teanum 
Apulum was twice mentioned. It is even possible that Livy, when 
he alludes to the deeds of Alexander in narrating the wars waged 
by the Romans against Naples, may have followed one of the many 
processes of concentration of which he, as well as all other early 
historians, has been guilty. 

There still remains another possible explanation. Since Livy 
states that Alexander remained fourteen years in Italy, although 
he was there in reality but five or six, it may be that he committed 
the error of attributing to Alexander of Epirus alone what had been 
accomplished both by him and by Archidamus of Sparta, who 
came to Italy to aid the Tarentines at about the time when Livy 
supposes that Alexander was summoned by them. This assump- 
tion, which at first sight may appear rather bold, is supported by 
the fact that Pliny really confuses these two individuals, and 
refers to Theopompus as his authority. He affirms that Alexander 
died at Mandonium, although it is known that he expired at Pan- 
dosia in Bruttium, and that it was Archidamus of Sparta who died 
at Mandonium or Manduria.? 
winter of 330 B.C. The real date of the arrival of Alexander escaped Niese (Ge- 


schichte d. griech. u makedon. Staaten, I, p. 476), but is exactly established by 
Beloch (Griech. Geschichte, II, p. 596). 

1 See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 375. 

2 Archidamus did not arrive in Italy earlier than 343 B. c. (cf. Schifer, 
Demosthenes u. seine Zeit, II2, p. 364), and died there in August, 338 B.c. (cf. 
- Diod. xvi. 88). Pliny (N. H. iii. 98), referring to Theopompus as his authority, 
says that Alexander died at Mandonia Lucanorum in 338 B. c. (Diod., loc. cit.). 
From Plutarch (A gis. 3) we learn that Archidamus was killed at Mavdénoyv rs 
"IraXlas bd Meooamrlwv. In my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 545, I proposed 
the identification of this Mandonium with the Manduria on the Sallentine penin- 


EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS IOI 


I shall pass over the other chronological and topographical 
problems connected with the expedition of Alexander. Elsewhere 
I have shown that the hypothesis of certain Calabrian writers, who 
think that he died at Acri in the valley of the Mucrone, is due to 
an erroneous reading of the text of Livy, also wrongly accepted by 
Lenormant and Head. From this passage we cannot with certainty 
derive the mention of Terina, as critics generally do. It should 
also be noted in this connection that in the modern texts of Livy 
the word Consentia, which is lacking in the Medicean codex, should 
be struck out from the passage referring to the first victories of 
Alexander. The only place where Livy could have mentioned 
this city would be in connection with Alexander’s death.? 
The few words with which Livy alludes to the career of this 
leader are both compressed and confused, and the text in the 
codices is corrupt and possibly mutilated. The accounts of Justin 
are better arranged, but even they are open to doubt. It is, there- 
fore, hard to understand how modern writers who have treated the 
subject could so readily have accepted such inadequate proof for 
their statements.?_ A careful examination of the texts in question 
leads to conclusions somewhat at variance with those which are 
generally accepted. 
sula which was taken by Q. Fabius in 209 (Liv. xxvii. 15), and which is also men- 
tioned by Pliny (N. H. ii. 226). Beloch (Griech. Gesch., II, p. 593, n. 1) does 
not admit this identification and says that Archidamus was killed at some place 
unknown to us, “apparently far inland,” and distinguishes Mandonia from Man- 
duria. He overlooks the fact that, according to Plutarch (loc. cit.), Archidamus 
was killed by Messapians, and there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that 


he died at Manduria, which was near a lake on the Sallentine peninsula (Plin. N. H. 
ii. 226). Moreover, Manduria is termed Mavédpiov by Stephen of Byzantium, s. v. 


t Liv. viii. 24. 4: “‘cum saepe Bruttias Lucanasque legiones fudisset, Hera- 
cleam Tarentinorum coloniam [Consentiam] ex Lucanis Sipontum Bruttiorum 
acrentinam alias inde Messapiorum ac Lucanorum cepisset urbes.”” The word 
consentiam is not in the Medicean codex. In place of the acrentinam of this codex, 
others have acerinam. From a suggestion of Sigonius, our texts now read ac Teri- 
nam, and to Cluveris due the placing of Consentiam after Bruttiorum. The word 
Apulorum after Sipontum, and Potentiam before ex Lucanis, are late and arbitrary 
additions, unfortunately accepted even by Weissenborn (see my Storia di Roma, I, 
2, pp- 489-91). 

2 This corrupt text of Liv. viii. 24. 4 is accepted without comment by Beloch 
(op. cit., II, p. 594), and the various traditions are noted, also without criticism, by 
Niese (loc. cit.). 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
SANTA BARZARA COLLEGE LIBRAI 


102 ANCIENT ITALY 


The purpose of Alexander is well known. He was summoned 
by the Tarentines, and arrived in Italy two or three years after 
Archidamus, the Spartan, had perished at Manduria in a battle 
with the Lucanians and Messapians (338 B.c.). The Epirote 
prince took charge of reorganizing the military forces of Tarentum; 
of causing her ancient hegemony to be recognized among the Mes- 
sapians; and, above all, of protecting her against the frequent 
invasions of the Lucanians. Only for a brief period at the time of 
Archytas and the second Dionysius had the Tarentines been able 
to defend themselves even partially by their own arms. When the 
supremacy of the two Dionysii of Syracuse along the Adriatic coast 
had come to an end, there followed a long period during which 
Tarentum, more or less unwillingly, had to give herself into the 
power of foreign soldiers of fortune, to guard against the Lucanian 
invasions. Alexander succeeded Archidamus after only a short 
interval, and was himself followed with equal rapidity by Agatho- 
cles, Cleonymus of Sparta, and Pyrrhus. Adapting himself to 
the position of commander of the forces of a friendly city, he con- 
cealed, as did his successors, his larger plans of personal dominion. 
He pretended at first to assail the enemies of Tarentum, just as the 
condottieri of the fifteenth century entered the service of the Italian 
cities for the purpose of procuring a larger state for themselves. 
According to Justin, he commenced by attacking Brundisium, the 
rival par excellence of Tarentum. Like the latter city, Brundisium 
had an excellent harbor, but her position opposite Epirus drew 
away from her enemy a large portion of the commerce of the East." 
We may also put faith in the statement of Livy that Sipontum was 
one of Alexander’s first conquests.? In addition, he is said to have 
subdued a considerable portion of Apulia. This is not contradicted 
by the circumstance that he thought it best to make peace with 
Brundisium. According to Trogus Pompeius, he was led to do 
this by reverence for the oracles. It is clear that in this case 
religion served as a cloak for lack of success or for some political 
design. It is also said that Alexander formed an alliance with the 
Apulians and Peucetians, the indigenous inhabitants who domi- 


t Iust. xii. 2. 7. . 2 Liv. viii. 24. 4. 


EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS 103 


nated the Colline delle Murge, and kept at bay the Apulians of the 
coast.? Since Alexander was aiming less at aiding the Tarentines 
than at the formation of a vast principality, it is clear why he pre- 
ferred to make treaties with their enemies, and to favor the mari- 
time relations with his native Epirus. The alliance with Brundi- 
sium was possibly paralleled by others with Rubi, Salapia, and 
Apulian cities, to judge from the types of their coins.? 

The fact that Alexander fought entirely in his own interest, and 
aimed at forming a vast principality, is shown by the statement 
regarding the Lucanian exiles who formed, so to speak, his prae- 
torian guard, and by the reference to the three hundred prominent 
indigenous families which he sent as hostages to Epirus.3 

Tarentum finally became aware that in place of a protector she 
had secured a master, and the democracy of that city, given as it 
was to an easy and luxurious manner of living, became intolerant of 
discipline and military supremacy, and came into open rupture 
with Alexander and later with all of his followers. It would seem 
that the Tarentines sought to counterbalance the alliance of Alexan- 
der with the Messapians by making peace in their turn with the 
Lucanians, the ones among their common enemies who had offered 
the longest and most obstinate resistance. Alexander, in order to 
break off all relations with the Tarentines who had summoned 
him, allied himself with Thurii, conquered Heraclea on the Siris, 
where under the Tarentine hegemony the parliament of all the 
Italiot cities assembled, and transferred the seat of the common 
council to the territory of Thurii on the banks of the river Acalan- 
drus.4 With this must naturally be related the alliance of Alexan- 
der with Metapontum, which during the periods in which Taren- 
tum was especially flourishing had to recognize the supremacy of 
her more powerful neighbor.s 

In a ancient source it is said that Alexander, on setting sail for 

x Tust.xui. 2.75, 12: 

2 The resemblance between the types of coins from Epirus and those from 
certain Apulian cities may, however, be connected with relations existing for a 
longer period between the two countries situated on opposite shores of the 


Adriatic. 
3 Liv. viii. 24. 5. 4 Strab. vi, p. 280 C. 5 Iust. xii. 2. 12. 


104 ANCIENT ITALY 


Italy, exclaimed that his nephew, the great Macedonian, was 
fighting with women, while he, in taking the field against the 
Romans, was preparing to attack men.* If these words were 
really pronounced on that occasion, they would indicate that the 
problem of Roman domination in the southern part of the penin- 
sula was clearly present in the minds of Greek politicians as early 
as the middle of the fourth century. There seems to me no 
reason for discrediting this statement, nor for doubting, as did 
certain ancient writers (and as do many critics of the present day) 
the embassy of the Romans to Alexander the Great. The treaty 
between the Romans and the Samnites, and also that between the 
Romans and the Carthaginians, which fall in about the same 
period, between 351 and 348 B. c., together with the Roman inter- 
vention in Campania, about 340, and the conquest of Naples, 
about 326, all clearly show that after 356, and after her victories 
over the Gauls, and over the Etruscans of Tarquinii, Rome had 
become the most powerful state of central Italy. The formation 
of this state naturally preoccupied both the Italiots and the rulers 
of Greece proper, who after the political downfall of Greece sought 
their fortune in the West. It may well be that, before moving 
against the Romans, Alexander the Molossian tried to form a 
state in Apulia, and later a league of all the Italiot cities, to serve 
him as a base of operations. At any rate, the rupture with Taren- 
tum forced him to renounce his intention of forming a realm of his 
own in the portion of southern Italy lying toward the Adriatic, and 
to turn his arms against the Lucanians and the Calabrian states. 

Alexander allied himself with Achaean Metapontum and with 
Achaean Attic Thurii, both enemies of Tarentum.? At this point 
we should expect mention of Croton, Locri, Regium, and the other 
Greek cities of Bruttium which from about the year 356 B. c. had 
been in the hands of the Brettii. If the passage from Livy quoted 
above does allude to the capture of Terina, it would show that 
Alexander seized this entire region. ‘This result is also arrived at 
by a study of the coins of Hipponium, which was likewise captured 
about 356 by the Brettii. Of these coins, some record the cult of 


t Gell. N. A. xvii. 21. 33. 2 Tust. xii. 2. 12. 


EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS 105 


Olympian Zeus, and are attributed to the time of Alexander." 
From the scanty information which has come down to us regarding 
this period, it would seem that the cities of Bruttium were torn by 
continual intestine strife, caused by the opposition of the Greek ele- 
ment to the conquering Brettii.2 This was certainly the case with 
Croton, both for the time immediately following the death of Alex- 
ander and for the succeeding period. According to the same pas- 
sage from Diodorus,* Thurii also is said to have been taken by the 
Brettii after 356. If, however, we find that she became the strong- 
hold and favorite city of Alexander, this shows that the Greek ele- 
ment had there succeeded in obtaining the upper hand, even though, 
as the coins seem to show, it was continually deteriorating.» The 
alliance of Alexander with Thurii and Metapontum, and the exclu- 
sion of Tarentum from the Achaean and Italiot league into which 
she had forced herself at the time of the wars for the territory of 
Siris, would have formed the turning-point of the political ideals of 
the Italiots of the fifth century. But their horizon was then 
changed. The Lucanians and Brettians were closing in upon the 
cities of the coast, and had even seized some of them. It was 
necessary to rise to the higher ideal of a Greek empire in southern 
Italy, to be attained by recognizing all of Bruttium and Lucania, 
which had formerly been held by the Oenotrians. The dominion 
of a general who could command both the natives and the Greeks 
would naturally succeed to, and absorb, the single cities and small 
confederations. 

By marching through the territory of Metapontum and the 
valley of the Brasento, Alexander would have been able to traverse 
the entire district controlled by the Lucanians, and to strike at the 
very heart of the empire belonging to the most vigorous of his 
enemies in the south. In fact, it is affirmed by a well-known 
modern historian that he did make his way through this region, 
and push as far as Paestum.®° This assumption, however, rests 


1 Head, Hist. num., p. 85. 2 Diod. xvi. 15. 2. 

3 Diod. xix. 4. 10; xxi. 4; cf. Liv. xix. 3.12; and my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 482. 
4 Diod. xvi. 15. 2. 5 Head, Hist. num., p. 72. 

6 Beloch, Griech. Gesch., II, p. 594. 


106 ANCIENT ITALY 


upon a simple equivocation, or rather upon a false interpretation 
of a passage in Livy. From Livy, and also from the historian 
Lycus of Regium, whose account of this event has hitherto been 
overlooked, we learn that Alexander coasted around Calabria, and 
approached Paestum by sea.*. This shows that he did not have 
sufficient forces at his disposal to enable him successfully to traverse 
the Lucanian territory. Moreover, it is probable that, after having 
fought for several years against the Lucanians, whom he had 
learned to honor and fear, he had noticed that they were continually 
being reinforced by allies from the north.? He therefore planned 
to surprise the enemy by a flank movement, just as Julius Caesar 
did when, in proceeding against the Britons, he sought to prevent 
their sending reinforcements to the Celtsin Gaul. The Lucanians 
were in reality allies of the Samnites, from whom they were 
descended. The Samnites were at war with the Romans. Alexan- 
der, as protector of the Italiot cities, had already had occasion to 
complain of the piracy of the Volscians of Antium, who shortly 
before had become subject to Rome,? and ably guarded his own 
interests by allying himself with Rome against the Samnites. The 
Samnites were for a short period restrained from occupying the 
regions for which they were contending with the Romans, and, 
having hastened to the aid of the Lucanians, were defeated with 
them by Alexander near the plain of Paestum. 

t Liv. viii, 17: ‘‘ceterum Samnites bellum Alexandri Epirensis in Lucanos 
traxit, qui duo populi adversus regem escensionem a Paesto facientem signis con- 
latis pugnaverunt. eo certamine superior Alexander, incertum, qua fide culturus, si 
perinde cetera processissent, pacem cum Romanis fecit.” Lyc. apud Steph. 
Byz., s. v.: Zxldpos mods "Iradlas. 7d eOuxdv Txcdpivos, ws Avcos ev T@ mepl 
*AdeEdvdpov. This passage settles the question, raised by certain critics (e. g., 
Bouché-Leclercq, Hist. des Lagides, I, p. 135), as to whether Lycus related the 
deeds of Alexander the Great or of the Molossian. It is generally admitted that 
Scidrus must have been located on the Tyrrhenian coast not far from Laos, and 


here, just as in Laos, the Sybarites must have taken refuge (Herodot. vi. 25). 
Possibly it occupied the site of the modern Sapri (cf. Nissen, Ital. Landeskunde, 
II, p. 898). 

2 Compare Liv. viii. 24. 4, ‘cum saepe Bruttias Lucanasque legiones fudisset, ”” 
with Iust. xii. 2. 13: “sed Bruttii Lucanique cum auxilia a finitimis contraxissent, 
acrius bellum repetivere.” After these words follows the account of the last 
battle at the Acheron. 


3 Strab. v, p. 231 C. 


EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS 107 


Ancient writers have discussed the problem as to whether after 
this war Alexander would have kept faith with the Romans. There 
is, however, little use in wasting time over problems such as this, 
concerning what might have occurred had human events followed 
a different course. 

In addition to the Romans, we expect to find some reference to 
the Campanians, and there can be no doubt that Alexander had 
relations with such close neighbors of Paestum. It is evident, 
however, that our accounts of these events accept the version 
according to which the Campanians had of their own accord sub- 
jected themselves to Rome, a few years before the arrival of Alex- 
ander. In reality the Campanians preserved their autonomy until 
the time of Pyrrhus, and in part even to the time of Hannibal.' 

The existence of an autonomous state at Capua possibly 
explains the Campanian coins with Oscan legends, and with the 
same type of Jupiter Olympus and the eagle which exists on the 
coins of the Bruttian Hipponium or Vibo, which have been correctly 
connected with Alexander of Epirus.?, Of the two confederate 
states of Latium and Campania, the former certainly possessed 
the preponderating influence. Thus Alexander, in allying himself 
with the Campanians, could not disregard the Romans, who were 
masters of the most powerful state in Italy, and who prevented. 
free access to the regions north of the peninsula of Sorrento. He 
therefore limited himself to the conquest of the Italy of the Greeks, 
and, instead of going north to contend with the Samnites in the 
heart of their own territory, descended toward the south to attack 
the flying Lucanians from the rear, thus traversing the valley of the 
Tanagrus. This is the valley which was later chosen by Alaric, to 
whom it proved equally fatal. 

By this march Alexander aimed at conquering the entire Hin- 
terland of his ally Thurii, and at penetrating to the valley of the 
Crathis, where Pandosia, the ancient capital of the Oenotrian kings 
was located. At first he succeeded in making good progress. The 


t See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 229, 255. 


2 Garrucci, Mon. d. It. Ant., Plate 116, Fig. 13=Head, Hist. num., p. 85; cf. 
Garrucci, Plate 96, Fig, 33; Plate 97, Fig. 16. 


108 ANCIENT ITALY 


Lucanians, however, driven by necessity, united with their ancient 
subjects, the Brettians of Calabria, who were a cross between the 
earliest Italic peoples, formerly the slaves of the Italiots, and their fut- 
ure conquerors, the Lucanians. Leading a proud and savage life, 
the Brettians had shaken off the yoke of the Lucanians and united 
in a powerful confederation. They aimed at subjugating all of 
the rich Italiot cities on the Ionian and Tyrrhenian coasts. Alexan- 
der presented himself as the liberator of the Italiots, and as the 
founder of a single and compact empire in southern Italy, which 
naturally forced the Bruttians to make common cause with their 
neighbors. Alexander approached the walls of Pandosia, the ancient 
capital of the Oenotrian kings, and there, close to the banks of the 
Acheron, the dart of a Lucanian exile put an end to his life. When 
he heard the fatal name of the river which he had avoided in his 
native Epirus, he must have felt the same dejection as did Ezzelino 
da Romano when he found himself before the very Cassano which 
he had tried to avoid." 

The joy of the Tarentines at the tragic death of Alexander was 
but short-lived. Incapable of defending themselves, by various 
wiles, they had recourse, in quick succession, to the arms of the 
Gauls, the Umbrians, and the Samnites, and later to those of 
-Pyrrhus. On the other hand, the faithful friends of Alexander from 
Thurii and Metapontum felt great sorrow at his death, and paid 
the last honors to his mutilated remains.?, With him vanished their 
last hope of constituting, as at the time of the ancient Achaean 
League, a state which would enable them to escape, not only the 
yoke of the Lucanians and the Bruttians, but also the hegemony of 
Tarentum. 

It is not correct to assert, as has been done, that with the death 
of the brave Epirote leader there disappeared a great Greek princi- 
pality, extending from Garganus to Metapontum, and from 

x An analogous account refers to Lysander, whom an oracle is said to have 
warned to “shun loud Oplites,’’ and who met his death near the river ‘“Oplites” 
(Plut. Lys. 29. 7). A similar legend relates to Hannibal. It was prophesied that 
he would be buried in Libyssan soil, and he met his death, not in his native Libya, 


but at Libyssa in Bithynia (cf. Plut. Han. 20). 
2Iust. xii. 2. 15; Liv. vii. 24. 16; Strab. vi, p. 256 C.; Suid., s. v. révos. 


EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER OF EPIRUS 109g . 


Regium to Paestum and the banks of the Silarus. There is nothing 
to suggest that, when Alexander turned toward the west, his 
Apulian empire had not already been dismembered and assailed 
by the Lucanians and Tarentines. The battle at the Silarus, the 
limit reached by his conquests, leads to the supposition that he 
aimed at bringing under his control all of the apyaéa ’ItaXéa of the 
Italiots between Posidonia (Paestum) and the borders of the 
Tarentines and Iapygians, and that he sought compensation on the 
Ionian and Tyrrhenian shores for the ephemeral empire which he 
had formed on the Adriatic coast. 

In other words, Alexander, confronted with the invasion of the 
Lucanians and Brettians, and of the Romans who had almost 
secured control of Campania, conceived a plan not dissimilar to 
that of the Corinthian Timoleon, who, having arrived in Sicily a 
few years earlier, had succeeded in bringing a portion of the Sice- 
liot cities under the control of Syracuse. It is true that Timoleon 
was favored by the still existant traces of the great political and 
commercial prosperity of Syracuse—a prosperity such as no Italiot 
city ever attained. He gathered the last fruits of a sounder and 
more extended political organization than ever existed in southern 
Italy. Moreover, in Sicily the enemy could be easily watched. 
On the other hand, the ver italicum which was urging the new 
generations onward to the possession of southern Italy, made it 
easy to foretell that the domination of the peninsula could no 
longer remain with the Italiots, incapable as they were of defend- 
ing themselves and having recourse to soldiers of fortune for aid. 
It was clear, too, that southern Italy could not become a possession 
of the fierce and uncivilized Celts of the Po valley. Such a destiny 
was reserved for the peoples of central Italy, which to their fresh- 
ness of physical vigor added the advantage of knowing how to 
utilize the gifts of the Greek and Punic civilizations. Cleandridas, 
the father of Gylippus, Archidamus of Sparta, Alexander of 
Epirus, Agathocles, Cleonymus of Sparta, and Pyrrhus, whether 
they turned their arms to the aid of Thurii or of Tarentum, all 
represent the vain attempt to prevent the rapid disintegration of 
. the Italiot civilization, which, owing to geographical conditions and 


IIo ANCIENT ITALY 


to the frequent Sabine invasions, was not destined to last beyond 
the fourth century. At the end of the fifth century or the beginning 
of the fourth, Campania was removed from the influence of Greek 
civilization, and there grew up instead that of the Oscans, of which 
too few fragments have come down to us. On the other hand, the 
power of Rome was being strengthened, both by the arresting of 
the barbarian invasions from the north, and by the able way in 
which the Latins took advantage of the culture of the south. 

Greek historians who were contemporaries of Alexander of 
Epirus and the conquest of Naples, had already mentioned Rome 
among the cities of Greek character, and at the same time the 
victory of L. Camillus over the Gauls who had invaded Latium 
and pushed as far as Apulia, commenced to check the series of 
invasions from the north which were successively restrained at 
Sentinum, the Lacus Vadimonis, and Casteggio, and later by the 
natural frontier of the Alps. 

The defeat of the heroic Molossian prince had no lasting results 
either for the conquerors or for the conquered. The Greek cities 
remained for only: a short time subject to the Brettians and the 
Lucanians. ‘The wiles and money of the Tarentines retarded for 
only half a century the recognition of the supremacy of the indige- 
nous peoples of the central portion of the peninsula. ‘Through the 
irony of fate, Attic Thurii, which from the time of Pericles had 
struggled to rival Spartan Tarentum and to keep in check the 
Lucanians of the neighboring city, at about the same time lost her 
own independence, and had to proclaim herself freed from the 
Lucanians on the day when she recognized forever the supremacy 
of Rome. Just as the hope of forming a republic in Sicily perished 
with Timoleon, so with the death of Alexander came to an end the 
plan of forming a Greek empire in Italy. Rome allied herself 
with, and practically ruled over, Campania the year in which 
Timoleon died. In the same way she seized Naples the year in 
which Alexander met his fate by the Acheron. And, finally, the 
ever-increasing vigor of the Latin races was destined to frustrate 
the later attempts of Agathocles and Pyrrhus. 


t See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 488. 


Ix 


ERYX=VERRUCA? 


The belief is almost unanimously held by critics that the Ely- 
mians were not indigenous to Sicily, and some, such as Holm, rec- 
ognize in them traces of Semitic blood.? In opposition to these 
theories I have elsewhere attempted to show that, in spite of the 
Asiatic appearance of their name, there is no reason for thinking 
that the Elymians were of different race from the Sicani. The 
statements of both ancient and modern writers to the contrary 
notwithstanding, in the last analysis the Sicani were of the same 
stock as the Siculi.3 

I have also sought to show‘ that the ancient Ligurians (who 
without reason have been judged non-Aryan and different from 
the other Italic peoples) not only extended to the Apennines by 
Arezzo and to Latium, but occupied nearly all the shore regions of 


1 E. g., Freeman, Hist. Sic., I, p. 198. 

2 Cf. Holm, Gesch. Sic. (Leipzig, 1870), I, p. 86. 

3 Cf. my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 123 ff. My opinion is not accurately 
quoted by Lupus in his translation of Freeman (p. 509). That the name of the 
Elymians is the same as that of the Solymians seems probable from the presence 
of the forms ‘““Helymus” and ‘“Solymus” corresponding to “Edvpos, just as 
“‘Egesta”’ corresponds to ‘‘Segesta.”” This is rendered still more probable by the 
no small number of exact parallels between Elymian, Carian, and Libyan geo- 
graphical names (cf. Storia, etc., pp. 132 ff.). From this I did not conclude that 
the Elymians were of the same stock as the Solymians, and that these latter came 
to Sicily. I explained this identity of name by the colonies planted in both 
countries by the Dorian Rhodians, to whom also is due the statement that the 
founders of Phaselis below Mount Solymus, and of Siceliot Gela, were brothers. 
The correspondence between the names of the river Telmessus, near Elymian 
Segesta, and that of the Carian city Telmessus is also confirmed by the myths, 
since the legend of the river-god Crimisus, who, in the guise of a dog, had a child 
by the Trojan Segesta (see Serv. ad Aen. i. 550; cf. the coins of Segesta), is the 
same as that of Telmessus, the eponymous hero of the Asiatic city, who, in the 
form of a dog, had relations with one of the daughters of Antenor (see Dionys. 
Chal., fr. 4; Miiller, F. H. G., IV, p. 394). 

4See my Storia, etc., I, pp. 56, 492 ff. For the Ligurians in Aquitania cf. 
Sieglin apud Hirschfeld in the Sitzungsberichte d. Berlin Akad., 1896, p. 446, n. 3. 


IIt 


II2 ANCIENT ITALY 


the peninsula, of Gallia Narbonensis, and of the larger islands of 
the Mediterranean. 

It seems to me that the soundness of my theory regarding the 
Elymians is incontrovertibly shown by the presence among them 
of the same names as appear on the coast between Genoa and 
Luna; i. e., Segesta, Entella, and Eryx. I noted that the fifth- 
century coins of the Elymian Segesta lead one to suspect that the 
goddess Segesta there represented is the same as Segetia, the god- 
dess of the segetes, honored by the Romans. Moreover, the name 
of the Elymian Eryx is not Semitic nor oriental, but, just as that of 
the like-named Ligurian city (the Lerici of today), finds its explana- 
tion in the Italic dialects. 

It is my opinion that ’Epv& should be brought into relation with 
*Epv«n, an ancient city of the Ausonian Siculi, and also with the 
Volscian Verrugo. This last named town is several times men- 
tioned by the annalists* in connection with fifth-century events. 
Diodorus in one passage literally transcribes from a Latin annalist, 
and writes "Eppoveav 7édwv OvorAcKev.? In another place? he gives 
the hellenized form Oveppnyivos wéXews, which, however, may be 
derived from one of the early Latin annalists who wrote in Greek. 
Verrugo therefore bears the same relation to Erruca as Vitellia to 
"IraXéa, and Volsci to"OAco. “Epv€ and ’Epv«n are evidently dif- 
ferent forms of the same name. 

These theories become even more probable by a consideration 
of the sites of the different cities, and of the meaning of the corre- 


t Liv. iv. 1. §5. 58; v. 28; Val. Max. ii. 2. 8; vi. §. 2. 

2 Diod. xiv. 11. 6. 

3 Ibid., 98. 5. 

4 Both Van der Meij (Specimen litterarium exhibens Diordori Siculi frag. ant. 
hist. Rom. spectantia [Daventriae, 1864], p. 39) and Bader (De Diodori rerum 
Romanorum auctoribus [Leipzig, 1890], -p. 9) have gone astray in this matter. They 
give the preference to the second of the passages mentioned from Diodorus and 
substitute its reading Oveppovyiva for the “Eppovxa of the other (xiv. 11. 6). I do 
not agree with Meyer (Rhein. Mus., XXXVII[1882], p. 611) that the double forms 
of the ethnic names in Diodorus (cf. Totoxo in xiv. 117, in place of the customary 
Tuppynvol; and avroxpdropa, xii. 64; Sixrdtwpa, xii. 80) are caused by the haste 
of a careless translator. They are due rather to the contemporary use of both 
Latin and Greek sources, as I have elsewhere shown. 


XAUY 





Il “LV Id 


Ras 
eat ote 
Tis 


_ 
la ee 


Plan 
Peas 


- 
a 


“oy 


= 


7 ai 


ee 
en 





oanne ae ae 
LSet a 


ERYX=VERRUCA? 113 


sponding Latin form verruca.* The Elymian Eryx was situated 
on the summit of a lofty height of difficult access, which is today 
termed Monte S. Giuliano. An analogous position was doubtless 
occupied by the Siculian Eryce, which was expressly termed an 
éxupos Tdéos.? From the passages in Livy quoted above, all of 
the commentators rightly conclude that the Volscian Verrugo was 
in a similar situation; and the same may be said of the Ligurian 
Eryx, which was in the region where the mountainous Lerici is 
situated today. From -Gellius? we learn that in Cato verruca 
meant a locum.editum asperumque. ‘Theuse of this phrase to indi- 
cate the rocky summit of a height lasted through late Latin to 
mediaeval times, and even down to the present day. A few miles 
from Pisa, on the extreme southern slope of the mountain-chain 
termed Monti Pisani from Pisa itself, is a height practically isolated 
on three sides, and crowned with an ancient fortress, which from its 
position, if instead of the plain it had had below it the sea, would 
have recalled the Elymian Eryx. Until mediaeval times it was 
termed Ja Verruca, and even today in the Pistoiese and Lunigiana 
regions, and especially in that of Garfagnana, which ethnographi- 
cally are all strictly Ligurian, one frequently comes across similar 
localities termed Verruche or Verrucole.s 

It may be well to return to ancient examples, and to note that, 
while according to the common tradition the mother of Servius 
Tullius was the wife of the ruler of Corniculum, and was called 
Ocresia® or “the mountaineer,’’? according to a different version 

1 Cf. the relation of vesperum in Ennius to hesperon in Vergil (Cens. De 
d. nat. 24. 4). 

2 Callias apud Macrob. v. 19. 25; see below, chap. xiv. 

3 Gell. iii. 7. 6. 

4 Cf. Quint. viii. 3. 48; 6.14; who, however, decided that the expression was 
not elegant. 

5 In the region of Garfagna I have often noted that many of the topographical 
names have a clearly Ligurian character. - 

6 Dionys. iv. 1; Ovid Fast. vi. 627 ff.; Plut. De fort. Rom. 10; cf. Liv. i. 39. 5. 

7 Ocrisia or Ocresia comes from the Latin ocrem=monte (see Fest. s. v., 
p-181 M.); cf. Interocrea (today Antrodoco), Subocrini (Plin. N. H. iii. 133); cf. 
the Umbrian ocar, ukararx (Bucheler, Umbrica, p. 81), and the Latin Ocriculum. 


T14 ANCIENT ITALY 


of Servius' the one who gave birth to Tullius was an obscure 
maiden who had been taken prisoner when Tarquinius captured 
the civitas Vericulana. Vericula, instead of being a diminutive 
of Verruca, seems to bear the same relation to it as Procas to 
Proculas, Romus or Remus to Romulus, Volscus to Volsculus, 
Turdulus to Turditanus, and Hispalus to Hispanus; and to have 
survived in the modern le Verrucole. The deeds attributed to the 
kings were often anticipations of events which occurred during the 
early Republic. On this account it would not be strange if the 
civitas Vericulana of Servius were identical with the Verrugo of 
Livy. 

Granted that the "Eppovxa of Diodorus and the Verrugo of Livy 
correspond to the Latin verruca, we obtain not only an additional 
argument in favor of the theory that the Elymians were of Italic 
stock, but also a reason for holding to be without foundation the 
assertion that the Ligurians, among whom we find the forms Eryx 
and Segesta, were a non-Aryan race, and therefore different from 
the other peoples of the peninsula. It seems strange that a people 
which termed its principal city “‘Genua’”’—an Italic name derived 
from its position—could have been held to be non-Aryan. 
“Genua” was not a name given by a foreign people, and from the 
beginning the city presented itself as indigenous and as an ally of 
Rome.? In regard to Siculian names of Italic origin, in addition to 
Ducetius, Casmene, and Galaria, mentioned in my Storia della 
Sicilia (I, p. 112), we may perhaps add the Sican Kpaovos, the 
mods TOV LiKavav, said to be the home of Epicharmus,? and in 
which appears the equivalent of the Roman casitrum; and also 
Kpipicos, the Elymian river, which reappears both in the name of 
cape Kpéuioa, between Thurii and Croton, and in the Cremera, 
the well-known river near Veii, and not far from Rome. 

The relation which we have endeavored to show as existing 
between the Volscian Verrugo and the Sicilian Eryce and Eryx does 


t Serv. ad Aen. ii. 683. 

2 See the material collected by Mommsen, CIL, V, p. 885. I agree with 
Pedroli (Roma e la Gallia Cisalpina, pp. 112 ff.) concerning the condition of the 
allied cities. 

3 Steph. Byz., s. v, "Emlxappos. 


ERYX =VERRUCA? 115 


not constitute an isolated example, since the Sicilian Echetla and 
Vessa have parallels in the Volscian names of Ecetra and the 
Sinus Vescinus.* Even if we accept the opinions of Keil,? as 
opposed to those of Kinch and Meister, and interpret the coin 
legends SETESTALTIB and ERYKA | EIB, not as Leyeoralin and 
"Epuxalin, but as Leyeora&iB and “Epuxah%8, this offers no 
serious obstacle to the theory concerning the Italic origin of the 
Elymians. At the worst, and granting that these coins suggest a 
non-Aryan element in the Elymian population, it should not be 
forgotten that, according to Thucydides,3 the Elymians were a 
mixture of Sicani and Trojans, to whom a few Greeks had united 
themselves. 

Leaving to one side the Trojans here localized by the Greek 
myth,‘ we may well admit that there were Phoenician and Libyan 
elements in the population of Eryx and Segesta—cities which first 
were allies of Carthage, and then became her subjects. It is 
strange that in treating of this question one should take as a basis 
for argument merely the coins, which belong to an age when the 
political and commercial influence of Carthage had become impor- 
tant, and should neglect the other evidence, in which any critic who 
frees himself from all preconceived ethnographic and linguistic 
ideas must find proof that the Elymian population took its origin 
from the other Aryan peoples of the peninsula and the island. 

1 Steph. Byz., s. v., in addition to the Sicilian “ExerAa, notes an’Exerla rods 


IraXlas, and an Exérpa wéXs ‘IraXlas which is the well-known Volscian city. 
Possibly "Exeréa is a second form for the name of the same city. 


2 Keil, Ath. Mitth., 1895, p. 406, n. 1. 
3 Thuc. vi. 2. 3. 
4 Cf. my Storia della Sic., etc. I, pp. 139 ff. 


* 


ie 
=) Soe 
PALO 
8 
= 
f 
. 
> 
3 
f 


Fic. 8.—Coin 





of Naxos. 


Xx 
ERGETIUM AND NAXOS 


The best-known numismatists are generally inclined to consider 
the following silver stater, of the normal weight of 7.90 grams, as 
an Italiot coin: 

MEP: Bearded Dionysus, naked, standing, holding a cantharus in the 
right hand and a vine branch in the left. 

K: Vine branch with grapes; 
and its twelfth: 

MEP: Head of bearded Dionysus. 

RK: Bunch of grapes. 

Although Garrucci publishes this coin among those of Italy, he 
is undecided as to the city to which it should be assigned. Poole, 
following Sambon, thinks it a stater, and attributes it to one of the 
uncertain cities of Lucania or Bruttium; and even Head thinks it 
may with probability be assigned to this latter region.t The 
reasons which led the English numismatists to attribute this coin 
to Bruttium in Magna Graecia are, if I am not mistaken, identical 
with those which caused Sambon to put forth the same hypothesis. 
Sambon observed that one of the rarest specimens of the coins of 
Ergetium (by him doubtfully attributed to Merusium), weighing 
7.90 g., was discovered in a Calabrian find of 1863, together with 
incuse coins of Achaean Caulonia, Laos, Metapontum, and 
Sybaris, and with archaic coins of Posidona, Tarentum, and even 
Caulonia. Forty of these staters weighed 7.90 g. each.?_ In addi- 
tion, the style of the coin of Ergetium confirmed him in his convic- 
tion that it was of Italiot, not of Siceliot, origin. 


t Garrucci, op. cit., II, p. 154, Plate III, Figs. 9, 10; Sambon, Recherches sur les 
monnates dela presqw’ile italique (Naples, 1870), p. 239, Plate 22, Figs. 7, 8. Sambon, 
following Sestini, from the erroneous reading Mer is inclined to attribute the stater 
to the Sicilian Merusium mentioned by Theopompus apud Steph. Byz., s. v.; 
cf. also Poole, Cat. of the Greek Coins, ‘‘Italy,” p. 395, no. 1; and Head, op. cit., p. 98. 
The two examples of staters published by Sambon weigh 8 and 7.90 grams respec- 
tively. Poole and Head give the normal weight of 7.90 grams=122 grains. 

2 Sambon, op. cit., p. 34. 

117 


118 ANCIENT ITALY 


Nevertheless, Sestini (apud Sambon) had already seen that we 
here had to deal with a Sicilian product, and de Luynes' recognized 
that the coins came from the Sicilian Sergentium. It could not, 
indeed, be otherwise. A glance at the archaic coinage of Naxos 
from the end of the sixth century will convince anyone of the truth 
of this assertion. The following is one of the earliest drachms of 
Naxos of the normal weight of about 5.90 g. :? 

Head of bearded Dionysus. 

K: Grapevine with grapes: NAXION. 

The points of resemblance both in the types and in the execu- 
tion are very striking. The head of Dionysus on the fraction of 
the coin from Ergetium is similar to that on the Naxian drachm, 
while the reverse of the latter seems cut by the same artist who pro- 
duced the stater of Ergetium. Also the forms of the letters on the 
coin from Ergetium take us back to the end of the sixth century, or 
at least to the beginning of the fifth, which is the time when the 
Naxian coins just discussed were struck. Thus we see that without 
doubt this Sergetium is not the Ergetium near Arpi in Apulia, as 
one might suppose, but the well-known Sergetium or Ergetium of 
the Siculi.3 

We shall shortly discuss the reasons why the coins of the two 
cities apparently do not correspond exactly in weight, but first let 
us examine more closely the coins themselves, for the purpose, if 
not of definitely solving, at least of better determining, the problem 
of the location of this Siculian city. 

Where Ergetium was situated is not known. From a passage 
in Polyaenus‘ describing the stratagem employed by Hippocrates 
of Gela (about 4y4 B. C.) in effecting its capture, we learn that it was 

t De Luynes, La monnaie de Servius Tullius, p. 29, Plate 4; quoted by Garrucci, 
loc. cit. 


2 Concerning the weight of the archaic coins of Naxos, see Imhoof-Blumer, 
“Le systeme monétaire euboique,” Annuaire d. 1. Soc. num. (Paris, 1882), p. 13; 
cf. Head, op. cit., 139; and Poole, Cat. of the Greek Coins, “Sicily,” p. 118. 

3 The form Zep (vyerivwyv) of the coin stands in the same relation to the literary 
form’ Epyérvov in which the SET Ef TALIBEMI of the archaic coins of Segesta 
stands to the Greek form “Eyeora. 


4 Polyaen. v. 6. 


ERGETIUM AND NAXOS 119 


a stronghold situated not far from the Laestrygonii Campi and 
Leontini. From the words of Stephen of Byzantium ad v. 70 
eOvixov "Epyetivos cal Aitvn ’Epyetivn, we are all the more con- 
firmed in our conviction that it was not far from the plain where 
Hippocrates caused the citizens of Ergetium, who had joined him 
as mercenaries, to perish, and which is located at the foot of Aetna. 
The coins which we have just now attributed to Ergetium, and 
which are either but a few decades earlier than, or contemporary 
with, Hippocrates, make it all the more certain that it was not far 
from Chalcidian- Naxos, a city which also fell a prey to the tyrant 
of Gela, just as did Ergetium, Naxian Callipolis, Chalcidian 
Leontini, and Zancle.* If any remains of Ergetium still exist, they 
must be searched for on some slight eminence on the eastern slopes 
of Aetna, where the warm sun and rich volcanic soil produced the 
vines which rendered prosperous both Ergetium and Naxos, and 
where the luxuriant and productive vineyards still arouse the admi- 
ration of the visitors to this most beautiful among the beautiful 
shores of Italy. : 

The exact site of Ergetium is a problem for local scholars to 
solve. Let us rather note that the perfect resemblance between 
the coins of the Siceliot and of the Siculian city shows that commer- 
cial relations existed between the two places and the two peoples. 
Thucydides, in his discussion of the first expedition sent by the 
Athenians to Sicily and of the siege of Naxos by the Massanian 
allies of Syracuse, says that 0¢ ZuceXot trép Tav axpwy ToAXol 
katéBaivov BonBovvtes érri to's Meconvious.? This gave cour- 
age to the Naxians, who, seeing that the Leontini and the other 
Greek allies were arriving, made a sortie in which they put to death 
a thousand Messanians. The rest of the latter were put to flight, 
and in the retreat were killed by the BapSapor or Siculi (summer of 
425 B.C.) That allies from Ergetium also were among the 
defenders of the city seems probable now that the coins have shown 
the good relations which existed between the two cities. We have 
every reason to believe that Ergetium was in existence at that time. 
It is true that it had been seized by Hippocrates, but it is not stated 

t Herodot. vii. 154. 2 Thuc. iv. 25. 9. 


120 ANCIENT ITALY 


that he either destroyed it or made it suffer any harder lot than he 
did Naxos, which he also besieged.?_ Moreover, Ergetium is men 
tioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy.? As additional proof that such 
assistance was rendered may be mentioned the fact that the 
Naxians were also aided by Leontini, a city which lay to the south, 
in which direction Ergetium must of necessity have been situated. 

It is interesting to notice how both the passage in Thucydides, and 
the identity in type and workmanship of the coins from Ergetium 
and Naxos, tend to show the good relations existing between the 
Siculi and the Chalcidio-Ionian cities. To judge by the coins, the 
inhabitants of Ergetium became no less hellenized in this regard 
than did the Elymians of Segesta. The relations between the Siculi 
and Syracuse, on the other hand, were far different. The authors 
depict the Siculi as always disposed to rebel against the powerful 
Doric city, and we see them continually striving to throw off her 
yoke. In their relations with the Ionian cities, on the contrary, 
they showed themselves sincere and affectionate friends. Do we 
not have in this an indication of the difference in character between 
the two races, and of the diverse, or even opposite, systems which 
they followed in their work of conquest ? Certainly the friendship 
between Naxos and Ergetium recalls the policy of the Achaeans in 
Italy. Sybaris and Croton were friendly with the peoples in the 
interior, and we have possibly a case analogous to the one here 
under discussion in that of Pandosia, the capital of the Oenotrians,3 
whose coins from the middle of the fifth century show a famil- 
iarity with Greek language and customs, and also an alliance with 
Croton.4 — 

In regard to the metrological problem, I formerly attempted to 
explain why the staters of Ergetium were similar to those of the 
Achaean cities of Italy. My observations in this connection— 
which I shall not here recapitulate—are shown to be erroneous by a 
communication which Imhoof-Blumer was kind enough to send me 
after their publication. He informs me that neither of the two 

t Herodot. vii. 154. , *Plin. N.oH. iii..8.91; Ptol. iii. 4.9. 
3 Strab. vi, p. 256 C. 
4 Head, op. cit., p. 90; cf. Garrucci, op. cit., II, p. 147. 


ERGETIUM AND NAXOS 121 


specimens of the coins of Sergetium, one of which is in the British 
Museum and the other in Paris, is well preserved, and that their 
normal weight, instead of 7.90 g., may originally have reached 
8.40 g. or even 8.60g. He also calls attention to the variation in 
the weight of the Siceliot coins, and states that didrachms of the 
same die vary between 9 g. and 7.90 g. He concludes as follows: 
“For Sergentium therefore, as everywhere in Sicily, we may assume 
the Euboean rather than the Italiot standard.” With these views 
of the famous numismatist coincides the fact, which I have else- 
where noted, that fractions of the coins of Ergetium have the same 
weight as the obols of Naxos of the same period, and are of the 
same form and type as their respective drachms.* 


t See Poole, Cat., etc., “Sicily,” p. 118, nos. 4, 5. 


< 
. 


—: 
rb, = ya 


z 


ee : _ : . 
en 
ey - 


a 


ae 
Cat 
3 


eee eae 


roo ae 
eee 


wou 





XI 
PIACUS 


Diodorus? relates that after the death of Ducetius, who six 
years before had founded Calacte, the Syracusans, having subdued 
all of the Siculian towns except Trinacia, decided to capture this 
also. Trinacia, he adds, was then the greatest of these towns, and 
abounded in valiant men. The Syracusans moved against it, after 
having assembled all of their own and the allied forces. The 
Trinacians had no allies, since these had all become subject to 
Syracuse, but they defended themselves bravely. The youths all 
perished in the combat, and the old men preferred voluntary death 
to the ignominy of servitude. The Syracusans reduced the rest of 
the population to slavery, and sent rich gifts to Delphi from the 
spoils. 

From the words of Diodorus, this Tpevax’n was evidently an 
important city, but as yet no one has been able to determine its 
location. It is generally connected with the Tyracinenses or 
Triracinenses among the Sicilian stipendiaries mentioned by Pliny,? 
and with Tupaxiva:, of which Stephen of Byzantium says (s. v.): 
moms LiKedrlas pixpa pév, evdaiuwv S& duos .... Tupaxny be 
avtny ’AdéEavdpos év Evpwrn cadet. Others have suspected that 
in Tpevaxin we should recognize the very name of Trinacria or 
Sicily.3 

Neither of these hypotheses, however, is correct. Tyracinae 
and the Tyracinenses were probably situated south of Syracuse and 
not far from that city. This being the case, the arms of the Syra- 

t Diod. xii. 29; 440 B.C. 2Plin. N. H. iii. gt. 

3 See Schubring in Rhein. Mus., XXVIII (1873), p. 116; Holm, Gesch. Sic., I, 
p- 73; Freeman, History of Sicily, I, pp. 158, 511 ff. 


4 For the position of Tyracinae see my Alcune osserv. sulla storia e sulla geog. 
d. Sicilia durante il dominio romano (Palermo, 1888), pp. 54, 140. To the passage 
there quoted from Cicero (Verr. II. iii. 129) may perhaps be added that of Vibius 
Sequester, who among the swamps records “‘Tyraco Syracusis,”’ alluding possibly 


123 


124 ANCIENT ITALY 


cusans, who were then masters of nearly all the Siculian towns, 
would not have been turned against a neighboring city, but against 
one located at a greater distance, and, as we shall see, toward the 
north. In regard to this hypothesis, and also to the second one 
(that Trinacia was the poetic name for Sicily itself),* it should be 
observed that in the summary of the twelfth book of Diodorus, 
where we should expect mention of the expedition of the Syra- 
cusans against the Trinacians, we read instead: ‘Qs Zupaxcdcros 
otpatevoartes em Iienvors thy wédv KaTécKarpar. 

It must be admitted that in one place or the other the 
text is corrupt. In view of the fact that Tpvaxéy is totally 
unknown, which is very strange considering that it is represented 
as an important city, the preference should be given to the passage 
mentioning the IIc«nvoé, whose exact name is given by Stephen of 
Byzantium, s. v. Héaxos, modus Luxedias, of rworitae Isaxnvoi. 

Instead of Hvaxnvot we should expect the form Hvaxivor, with 
the suffix -ivos proper to Siceliot and Siculian names;? and pos- 
sibly this form explains better, from a paleographical standpoint, the 
change from Tpuvd«vor to’ Ilvaxivor. At any rate, the form 
IIvaxivos is attested by a rare coin first correctly published by 
Imhoof-Blumer.? This coin is a bronze half-obol on which we 
read the letters [-l-A-K-I-M- (@v), separated by six dots to 
indicate the monetary value. On the face is the head of a horned 
river-god; on the reverse, a dog seizing a fawn by the throat. 
Imhoof-Blumer rightly rejects the hypothesis of Parthey and Schu- 
bring who identify Piacus with the recent name of Piazza Arme- 
rina, near Aidone.* He is disposed to accept the opinion of Corcia, 


to the harbor of Syracuse and to the near-by marsh of Vindicari, where I locate 
Tyracinae. 

1 Freeman, too, quotes this hypothesis, and accepts too readily the opinion of 
Dorville and Schubring, who place Trinacia at Aidone in the center of the island. 
There is no more reason for placing Trinacia at Cittadella di Aidone, where many 
ancient remains exist, than for placing there any other Siculian city the location of 
which is unknown. 

2 See Steph. Byz., s. v. ABaxatvoy, 

3 Imhoof-Blumer, Mon. grecques (Amsterdam, 1882), p. 26, Plate B, no. 11. 

4 Head, Hist. num., pp. 144, 115, fig. 73; cf. Poole, Cat. Gr. Coins, “Sicily,” 
Pp. 45, no. 25. 


PIACUS 125 


who finds traces of the name of Piacus in that of Placa-Baiana, near 
Bronte. The river in this case would be the Symaethus. The 
style of the coin, and especially the head of the river-god, recall, as 
Head has observed, the head on a tetradrachm from Catana.' 
The river symbolized by the dog seizing a fawn, he thinks, may be 
one of the torrents which at times descend from Aetna, perhaps the 
Acis or the Amenanus. It would seem, however, that the fact that 
the river is already typified on the face of the coin would lead one 
to seek some other explanation, and I prefer to see on the reverse 
a simple hunting-scene. The type of the dog tearing a hare or deer 
is seen on coins from Agyrium.? The fawn seized by the dog 
recalls the fact that the mountains about Aetna, among which 
Agyrium was situated, on account of the numerous deer there 


t Schubring (in Rhein. Mus., XXVIII [1873], pp. 116 ff.) gives no reason for 
identifying Piazza with Piacus. As Holm suggests (in Imhoof-Blumer, Joc. cit.), 
the name of “Piazza” (from Platea ?) may well be of recent origin. The name 
“Placa” also does not seem to me ancient. In addition to the Placa-Baiana in 
question, there exist in Sicily a Placa S. Salvatore near Francavilla, and a Plache 
near Aetna. Placa, according to d’Amico (Dizion. topogr. di Sicilia, ed. Di Marzo 
[Palerno, 1856], III, p. 448, col. 2), signifies something flat, and is the Sicilian form 
corresponding to the Latin plaga. 

2 Poole (op. ctt., p. 25, no. 6) and Head (op. c#t., p. 109) wrongly see on a 
coin of Agyrium a leopard devouring a hare. Salinas (Le monete d. ant. citta di 
Sic., p. 39, Plate XV, Fig 8) is likewise in error in describing it as a leopard devour- 
ing the head ofa deer. The supposed leopard seems to me to be a dog, just as the 
animal which figures on coins from the neighboring Centuripa is a dog, and not a 
leopard as these authorities suppose (Poole, op. cit., p. 55; Head, op. cit., p. 118). 
T also think that these dogs on the coins of Centuripa and Agyrium are of the same 
kind as the thousand kéves .... lepol tmepalpovres 7d Kdddos Tods ModorTTovds 
kévas from the neighboring Adranus (see Ael. N. A. xi. 20). It is precisely on 
account of their size that these animals have been thought to be leopards—animals 
which never existed in Sicily, and which could not be represented as seizing hares. 
The physician Scribonius Largus narrates (Composit. Med. 171) that his teacher, 
Appuleius Celsus of Centuripa, was in the habit every year of sending to that city 
a remedy of his which was of aid in cases of hydrophobia. It is perhaps worthy of 
note that even today the peasants from the most remote portions of Sicily, who have 
been bitten by mad dogs, visit the miracle-working spring of S. Vito at Regalbuto, 
situated between Agyrium and Centuripa. Possibly in these two cities, as in the 
neighboring Adranus, were also lepot xéves. Moreover, it is admitted by these nu- 
mismatists that a dog is represented on another coin from Agyrium (see Salinas, 
p- 29, Plate XV, no. 15; Poole, p. 26, no. 8; Head, p. 109), although a close exam- 
ination will show that it does not differ from the so-called leopard. 


126 ANCIENT ITALY 


found were called Nebrodes.* ‘The scene on the reverse of the 
coin has probably some symbolic meaning, and might refer either 
to a townsman of Piacus overtaking a fleeing enemy,’ or to the 
numerous sacred dogs in the region about Adranus. At any rate, 
the few indications furnished by this coin lead us to place Piacus in 
a region to the north or northwest of Catana. 

This supposition is further supported by an examination of the 
political value of the accounts of Diodorus. Although the informa- 
tion which he gives us concerning the history of Sicily for the period 
between the driving-out of the Deinomenids and the second Athe- 
nian expedition is not abundant, and is at times very fragmentary, 
it is in the present instance sufficient to enable us to determine the 
location of the pretended Tpevaxén, or rather of Iéaxos. 

About 451 B. c. the Syracusans succeeded in overthrowing the 
confederation of the Siculi led by Ducetius. After the defeat at 
Nomae, Ducetius was obliged to flee to Syracuse, to which he 
intrusted both himself and the entire region which had been under 
his control. The region which thus came into the power of Syra- 
cuse was situated between the territory of Agrigentum and that of 
Leontini, and embraced both Menae, the home of Ducetius, and 
Palice, which he had made the seat of the Siculian confederation.‘ 
About 446 B.c., shortly before the time when the Syracusans 
defeated the proud Agrigentines at the Himera,> Ducetius fled 
from Corinth, whither he had been relegated by Syracuse, and, 
returning to Sicily, landed at Calacte, where he founded a colony 
and associated with himself Archonides, the despot of Herbita, 
with the intention of creating another Siculian confederation.° 


t Solin. 5. 12. Mommsen: ‘Nebroden damnae et hinnulei gregatim perva- 
gantur: inde Nebrodes.”” This derivation seems to me better than that of Holm 
(Gesch. Sic., I, p. 95), who thinks they were thus named from Nebrod or Nimrod. 

2 One is reminded of the coin of Regium with the figure of a hare, which pos- 
sibly gave rise to the ancient expression, ‘Pyylvov Sedérepos; see I. F. Ebert, 
Disser. Siculae, I (Regimonti, 1825), pp. 187 ff. 

3 Diod. xi. 92. 1: éavréy [i. e., Aovxériov] re kal Thy xwpav Fs hv Kdpios map. 
é5wke Tots Zupaxoglots. . 

4 Ibid. xi, 78. 5; 88. 6. 5 Ibid. xii. 6. 

6 Ibid. xii. 8. (cf. 29): dvrerornoaro peév [i. e., Aovxérios] ris TOv BeKedOv 
tryequovlas. 


PIACUS 127 


Thus, instead of approaching the shores which were under the 
dominion or hegemony of Syracuse, he landed at a place inhabited 
by people who did not recognize the supremacy of the powerful 
Doric city, and where, among the Nebrodes mountains, various 
indigenous tribes still preserved their independence. The poli- 
tical plan of Ducetius was well conceived. Diodorus, in speaking 
of the events of the year 442 B.c., which was about two years 
before the death of Ducetius and the taking of Piacus, observes 
that Sicily was then quiet, and that the treaties of alliance which 
had been concluded between Gelo and the Carthaginians after the 
victory at the Himera (480 B. c.) were still in force. He adds that 
the other Siceliot cities, including even Agrigentum subsequent to 
the battle of the Himera,* recognized the hegemony of Syracuse. 
Ducetius, however, although he had come to a place to which the 
dominion of Syracuse had not as yet extended, did not remain idle, 
and was proposing to found a new Siculian confederation, when 
death overtook him in the midst of his plans.?_ Since Diodorus 
tells of the expedition of the Syracusans and their allies against 
Piacus, immediately after mentioning the death of Ducetius, it is 
clear that the two facts are in some manner connected. Between 
446 and about 440, while Ducetius had been planning to construct 
a Siculian empire as a rival to that of Syracuse, the Syracusans 
themselves had not been idle, and hardly was Ducetius out of the 
way before they seized upon his death as an occasion for conquer- 
ing the last refuge of the Siculi. When Piacus was attacked, all 
of the neighboring cities had already been captured. Since, there- 
fore, Ducetius had founded a new colony at Calacte, and had 
allied himself with the despot of Herbita, which was situated not 
far from Nicosia and the Monti Nebrodi, the Siculian city of 
Piacus was probably not far from these mountains, on the road 
leading from Catana to Calacte. The very account of the defense 
of the city and of the brave death of the Piacines is better suited to 
a band of independent and fierce mountaineers than to the inhabi- 
tants of a more civilized city on the plains. 

According to the authoritative judgment of Head and Poole, 

1446 B.C.; Diod, xii. 26. 3. ; ‘Thied ail aoor, 


128 ANCIENT ITALY 


the above-mentioned coins of Piacus date from the final years of 
the fifth century; and Imhoof-Blumer also attributes them to this 
period. If this opinion is correct (as it seems to me to be), we must 
admit that after its destruction the city of Piacus was rebuilt upon 
its old site. This fact need cause no surprise. With brief inter- 
vals many of the Siculian and Siceliot cities were several times 
destroyed and rebuilt. On the other hand, the existence of Piacus 
between 415 and 4oo B. C., as Head would conclude from the coins 
in question, corresponds well with the political conditions of that 
time. ; 

When, after 427, the Athenians came to Sicily, they found that 
Inessa, which was situated at the foot of Aetna and on the road 
leading to the Nebrodes and Calacte, was in the hands of the 
Syracusans. Out of hatred toward the Syracusans, by whom they 
were harshly governed, during the ensuing campaign the Siculi of 
that region favored the Athenians.* | When in 415 the Athenians 
undertook their second and greater expedition, they found that Hy- 
bla, Gereatis, Inessa, and Centuripa were hostile.? Evidently these 
places were at that time well disposed toward Syracuse, which had 
extended anew in that region her hegemony or domination, as the 
case might be, to the detriment of the Chalcidian cities of Catana — 
and Naxos, and of the Siculi. That Gylippus found Siculi who 
were friendly to Syracuse in the region in question between the 
Himera and the Leontine territory was due to the fact, as shown by 
Thucydides, that Archonides, the friend of the Athenians, was 
dead.3 In this individual we should probably recognize either the 
very Archonides of Herbita who was a friend of Ducetius, or else 
one of his descendants. 

At the time of the second Athenian expedition, therefore, it was 
possible for Piacus to have recovered to some extent from her 
crushing defeat, but the fact that she is never mentioned after 440 
shows that her new lease on life was but of brief duration, and that 

t Thue. ili. 103. 2 Thuc. vi. 62. 5, 94. 

3 Thuc. vii, 1. 4: T&v LBexekSv tives of word wpobuysrepov mpocxwpeiv érotuor 
fioav rod te Apxwvldov vewsrl redvnxbros, bs Tv rabry LixedOv Bacrhebwy Tivav 


kal dv ob ddtvaros Tots ’AOnvatos pidos Hv. Both Holm (II, p. 39) and Freeman 
(III, pp. 158, 236) agree that one has to deal with the same Archonides. 


PIACUS 129 


she soon again provoked the wrath of powerful Syracuse. To 
judge from the words of Diodorus, Piacus was an important city 
of the Siculi, ranking with Hybla and Ergetium; and like these 
places, as shown by the above-mentioned coins, she received the 
germs of civilization from the Ionic Chalcidian cities.‘ And since, 
for the period anterior to that of the Deinomenids, the history of 
even such important towns as Naxos and Catana is nearly all lost, 
it is not strange that we know nothing of Piacus save for the tale 
concerning the heroic end of her citizens. 


t For Ergetium, see above, chap.x 


XII 


THE ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO AND 
THE ANCIENT CITIES OF THE 
HERAEAN PLATEAU 


The beautiful archaic Greek relief which is here’ for the first 
time depicted was discovered in November, 1837, by a peasant 
who was plowing in the region of S. Mauro, nearly five miles 
distant from Caltagirone. Its discovery came to the notice of 
Baron Filippo Perticone, who at that time was devoting himself 
to the study of the antiquities of Caltagirone. He hastened to 
carry the precious monument to a place of safety, and four years 
later published it in a pamphlet, in which he also promised a 
reproduction of the relief, together with many other antique objects 
which he had discovered.?, Such plates, as far as I know, were 
never published.3 It is this circumstance, together with certain 
inaccuracies in the pamphlet,4 and the unfavorable criticism of a 
rather well-known Sicilian bibliographer, that has kept so precious 
an object from students of the early art and history of Sicily. It 
would still be unknown, and would have remained so for who 
knows how long, had I not decided to include a scientific explora- 


1 See Plate III. 


2 Antichita della greca Gela mediterranea oggi Caltagirone, rinvenute, osservate, 
e discritte da Filippo M.* Perticone (Catania: Giontini, 1841); see pp. 18 ff. 
Perticone says that in that region were found ‘diverse objects of burnt clay, and 
bronze images of different kinds, among others a fine cow of Corinthian ( ?) metal;”’ 
and adds, that also ‘‘a quantity of coins, both Graeco-Sicilian and Roman, come 
daily to light.” Many years later, in 1857, the author reprinted his work at Catania 
under the title: Le antichita della Gela medit. oggi Caltagirone. 

3 The plates are lacking in the copy given me by Baron Perticone himself, nor 
could I find them in the public library of Caltagirone, which I examined carefully. 

4 For example, an inscription which Perticone says was in the fortress of Cal- 
tagirone has been correctly identified by Mommsen as no. 1067* of Vol. X of the 
CIL; and the same lack of accuracy is seen in the case of other inscriptions in the 
pamphlet. But while Perticone showed himself ready to accept any and all 
material, I do not think he ever knowingly deceived. 


131 


132 ANCIENT ITALY 


tion of Caltagirone in my itinerary during a recent visit to Sicily for 
the purpose of collecting the necessary material for the compilation 
of the Supplementa Italica of the CIL. 

In addition to the hope—which was to some extent realized—of 
finding epigraphical material, I was led to visit this city, which is 
for the most part neglected by travelers and archaeologists, by 
the desire of solving a historical problem which had long been 
present in my mind. It seemed very strange that in that corner 
of Sicily there should be such a lack of monuments of the Greek 
and Roman periods, although the references in ancient authors, 
the history of the island, and the nature of the country would lead 
one to expect exactly the opposite. On these Heraean moun- 
tains, justly celebrated by the ancients for their fertility and beauty, 
and in this region which even today passes for one of the richest 
and most densely populated of the island, thanks to the Greek cul- 
ture which from east as well as west ascended the valleys in which 
Gela, Camarina, Syracuse, Megara, and Leontini had been founded, 
there was early formed that confederation of the Siculi which for 
some time even tried to rival the Syracusan dominion, a few 
decades after it had been established by the Deinomenids. I was, 
moreover, persuaded that in the region about Caltagirone—a city 
which in modern times has been considered as the first on the 
Mediterranean side of Sicily—should be located some of those 
oppida of the Siculi which are alluded to more or less frequently 
by early writers, and which, for various reasons which we shall in 
part have occasion to notice, have been, and still are, attributed by 
modern Sicilian historians to other and distant localities. 

The precious monument, the obscure and forgotten resting- 
place of which I had the good fortune to discover in a garret at 
the Lyceum of Caltagirone,? not only confirmed, but even surpassed 


t Cf. the excellent and ample description of their fertility in Diod. iv. 84. 


2 I owe my knowledge of this monument to Baron Perticone himself. At the 
time of my visit this nearly blind octogenarian, who was just recovering from a 
severe illness, in response to my request for epigraphical material, came from his 
estate to Caltagirone to give me his only copy of his publication, and to show me 
the antiquities which, together with the monument in question, he had presented 
to the town of Caltagirone. It is hardly necessary to say how grateful I am to him 


PLATE III 





ARCHAIC RELIEF FROM S. MAURO 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 133 


my expectations. It is sculptured upon a slab of compact lime- 
stone 0.85 m. high, 1.62 m. broad, and 0.14 m. thick. In the 
upper zone are represented two groups of dancing satyrs, one to 
the right and the other to the left. The space between these 
groups is much corroded, but one can still distinguish traces of 
another figure which bore an oenochoe. In the lower zone are 
two sphinxes, back to back, and holding one paw raised. In the 
center, between the wings of the sphinxes, is a double palmette, 
the upper portion of which seemed to me to show plainly discernible 
traces of painting. The details are executed with exceeding fine- 
ness and delicacy of touch. 

I shall not attempt to describe this monument from an archae- 
ological standpoint. From now on it will certainly be studied 
by students of archaeology and art. The striking similarity between 
the Bacchic dance in the first zone and the dances frequently repre- 
sented on archaic Greek vases will be noticed at first glance; likewise 
that between the type of the sphinxes and the sphinx represented 
on the archaic metope from Selinunte recently discovered by Salinas; 
between the arrangement of the hair of the sphinxes and that, for 
example, of the Apollo of Tenea; and between the arrangement 
of the figures and that of the figures on certain bronze plates from 
Olympia. In this manner all of the peculiarities of the relief should 
be noted, taking into account the form and proportion, and the 
distribution and importance of the subject. 

I repeat that I leave to archaeologists the task of publishing this 
monument from the standpoint of its artistic value, and of bringing 
out by minute comparisons its relation to the art of the Peloponnese 
and of Rhodes. Certainly from now on it will find a place in all 
the histories of sculpture and of Greek art.t It will be found natural 
I hope, that I, who am especially a student of history, and who came 
across the relief while in search of epigraphical and topographical 
for this. I must also express my gratitude to Dr. Salvatore Di Gregorio, professor 
of natural science in the Lyceum of Caltagirone, who aided me in finding and 
photographing the monument. The photograph itself I owe to the kindly and 
disinterested courtesy of Sig. Benedetto Bellia-Malfa, of Caltagirone. 


t As a consequence of the publication in Italy of this paper, the relief is now 
mentioned in Perrot et Chipiez, VIII, p. 497. 


134 ANCIENT ITALY 


data, should limit myself to bringing out its importance from a 
chronological and historical point of view. 

As regards the dating of the monument, I think there can be 
no dispute among archaeologists, and it may with almost absolute 
certainty be placed in the first decades of the sixth century B. C. 
It was probably of architectural origin, and may without doubt 
be considered as a product of the Dorian art of Gela. Monte S. 
Mauro, where the relief was found, is situated about sixteen miles 
from Gela. It dominates two valleys—those of the Maroglio and 
of a minor tributary—and in a certain measure closes the valley 
of the Maroglio, the stream which descends from Caltagirone and 
empties into the sea at Terranova, the ancient Gela. On the 
side toward Caltagirone, which faces it but a short distance away, 
the hill of S. Mauro ends very precipitously; and it may be asserted 
with sufficient certainty, even by one only slightly versed in the 
study of military science, that the city there situated would have 
been the extreme colony and outpost of Gela in that region, by 
means of which she not only guarded the valley of the Maroglio, but 
also protected herself and her territory from the neighboring 
plateau, on which are now situated Caltagirone, and, farther away, 
Granmichele, Viccini, Buccheri, and Buscemi, and where in early 
times were located the Siculian populations which were soon 
succeeded by colonies from Leontini, Megara, and Syracuse.* 

The chronological data furnished by Thucydides are based 
on an approximate calculation by generations. According to 
these, seventy years after its foundation (c.734 B. Cc.) Syracuse 
was able, by the foundation of Acrae, to control the entire pla- 

tIt is evident that, had they been able, the Geloans would have occupied 
Caltagirone instead of S. Mauro, since the former commanded the principal valley 
leading to the territory of Leontini. That they did not means one of two things: 
either the plateau now occupied by Caltagirone was in the hands of the Siculi, or 
else Leontini had already pressed as far as Caltagirone when the Geloans occupied 
S. Mauro. Leontini is said to have been founded (729 B.c) about forty years 
before Gela. Of these two hypotheses the former seems to me preferable. Pro- 
fessor Di Gregorio tells me that a paleontographical study of the grottoes near 
Caltagirone would yield a rich harvest. The Arab name of Caltagirone would 


seem to mean “city of grottoes;” see A. Cremona, Delle origini di Caltagirone 
(Palermo, 1892). 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 135 


teau above her. This assured her a means of communicating 
with the interior, both with the Siculi and with the southern shore 
of the island where, forty-five years before Acrae, she had founded 
Camarina (c. 599 B.C.). The position of S. Mauro and its dis- 
tance from Gela correspond in the main fairly well with the position 
and distance of Acrae in relation to Syracuse. Admitting that 
it had required two generations for the Geloans to get possession 
of the upper valley of the Maroglio, as far as the hill of S. Mauro 
where it ends, we may conclude that Gela, which, according to the 
same computation based on Thucydides, was founded forty-five 
years later than Syracuse (i. e., about 689 B. C.), seized that place 
about the end of the seventh century.t The date of the founding 
of Acrae has been taken for this comparison, not from love of 
conventional parallelism, but because of natural analogy. If 
Syracuse, whose actions on the left were limited by the neighbor- 
ing Megarians, needed two generations to obtain complete control 
of the plateau behind her, a similar extension of power could not 
have been accomplished in less time by Gela, which, in addition 
to the conquest of the valley of the Maroglio, had of necessity to 
provide for the simultaneous subjection of the other valleys which 
run back from the Geloan plain, and which afford means of com- 
munication with the regions in which Mazzarino and Piazza 
Armerina? are situated. 

The nature of the stone upon which our relief is cut shows that 
it could not have been carved during thefirst few years after the 
founding of Gela, but rather several generations later, when the 
Lindians, who founded the new city, had gained possession of the 
surrounding territory. Professor Salvatore Di Gregorio, in answer 
to my question, informs me that the material is commonly called 
pietra di Palazzuolo (Acrae), and that it is a more compact variety 
of the Syracusan limestone. He adds that even today these two 

1 Thuc. vi. 3 ff. For the character of this chronology see Busolt in Rhein. 
Mus., XL (1885), pp. 466 ff. 

2 According to an early reference, which I think was first made use of by me 

(see my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 235, n. 4), certain Geloan colonists are said 


to have perished fighting their enemies. The occupation of the territory was cer- 
tainly not entirely unopposed and pacific. 


136 ANCIENT ITALY 


materials are freely used at Caltagirone in better-class construc- 
tions. Considering the distance between the height of S. Mauro 
and that of S. Palazzuolo-Acreide, and also the distance between 
S. Mauro and Gela, and further considering the fact that the relief 
belongs without doubt to the sixth century, it must be admitted 
that it confirms the approximate correctness of the chronology of 
Thucydides which deals with the Greek colonies of Sicily. Bearing 
this in mind, it is perhaps not too bold an assertion that, just as 
some of the archaic reliefs of Selinus are attributed to the early 
years when that city was founded by the Megarian Hyblaeans, so 
our relief may easily belong to the first few years after the time when 
the Geloans, having taken possession of the height of S. Mauro, 
founded a colony there. 

Let us now consider whether a name may be given to this city 
of Greek foundation, and whether the city which was situated on 
the height of S. Mauro corresponds to any of the pre-existing cities 
of the Siculi which the Geloans later occupied. | 

The exact location of many of the Siculian cities of the interior 
is still unknown, and, in the present state of our knowledge, any 
attempt to determine it may seem premature, and possibly useless. 
If, however, while hopefully awaiting future excavations, I dare 
discuss this problem, it is because there seems to me good reason 
for so doing. I hope at least to outline more clearly the disputed 
points, and to bring out the important fact that on the summits of 
the Heraean Mountains we should seek several of the more famous 
cities of the Siculi, which have wrongly, as it seems to me, been 
attributed to other regions of the island. 

Many names present themselves to the mind. I exclude at 
once Echetla, not alone because it is never mentioned for so early 
a period, but especially because it seems certainly to have stood at a 
more eastern point of the Heraean plateau, at or near Vizzini.? 


t Although the case is far different, I cannot refrain from recalling that when, 
in the sixth century, the Geloans built their treasury at Olympia, they carried with 
them the:necessary material; see Ausgrabungen v. Olympia, p. 33. Thanks to the 
researches of Dérpfeld, it is known that others, such as the Sicyonians, followed their 
example. : 

2 According to Diod. xx. 32, it was evidently a fortress commanding a valley 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 137 


Eryce may also be passed over, for, as Cluver has already noted, 
it occupied a position near the lake of the Palici. According to 
Callias, Eryce was ninety stades from the border of the Geloan 
territory, and occupied a strong position above the famous lake.* 


between the territory of Leontini and that of Camarina. When Polybius (i. 15) 
says that for the period of Hiero II it was év wéoy xetuévny rH TSv Zvpaxovolwy 
kal Kapxnéoviwy érapxilg, this should, I think, be brought into relation with the 
boundaries which existed shortly after under Hiero and the Roman dominion. 
See Diod. xxiii. 4. 1; cf. my Osserv. s. storia e s. ammin. d. Sicilia (Palermo, 1888), 
p- 60, n. 3, where I accept the opinion of Neuling, who thinks that Echetla is also 
mentioned in Diod. xxiii. 5. I shall on another occasion give a complete and 
satisfactory explanation of the passage from Polybius. Here it would take too 
long, and be out of place. It may merely be noted that even in the peace between 
Syracuse and Carthage in 4o5 B. c. (cf. Diod. xiv. 114), Echetla, according to all 
probability, marked one of the confines of Syracuse or of Leontini. 


t Callias apud Macrob. v. 19. 25: 9 5 ‘Eptxn rijs uév Tedgas dcov évevixovra 
orddia diéornxev. He adds that it was an éxupds rémros, and that Ud’ 7 were the 
Delli, the brothers of the Palici. I entirely agree with Michaelis (Die Paliken 
[Dresden, 1856], pp. 6 ff.) in thinking that at first the Delli and the Palici were one 
and the same people. At any rate, even granting that they were not identical, 
according to Macrobius himself, who reports it, they lived close (nec inde longe) 
together. Cluver thought of Catalfano for Eryce. Certain modern writers have © 
wrongly placed it at Caltagirone, others at Rammacca. It seems to me that it 
should be located in the wedge formed between the two rivers Margherita (or 
Tonchio) and Fiume de Margi (Fiume di Caltagirone). It is uncertain whether the 
like-named river 'Epvxn mentioned by Duris (apud Steph. Byz., s. v. "Axpdyavres) 
should be identified with the first or second of these rivers. Modern writers are 
inclined to place the Palice of Ducetius on the opposite height, where Palagonia is 
today. Moreover, from Diodorus (xi. 88. 6) it is evident that Ducetius transferred 
Muvés (thus cod. P.) or Minae, his native town, to the plain near the lake of the 
Palici. From a gloss of Stephen which has been overlooked (s. v. Iedayovia, 
x@pa Zxedlas) it results that the modern name, rather than Palice, corresponds 
to the ancient name, and is identical with Palagonia. 

Since I have touched upon this point, I may be permitted to note that the 
much-discussed references to Minae are merely the result of a duplication in Dio- 
dorus of one and the same statement. Diodorus says (xi. 78. 5) that Ducetius 
Mévatvov (Mevatvoy cod. P.) wév mov Exrice xal thy cbveyyus xwpav Tots Kart- 
ocxicGetor Sueuepice. In the second passage, which has already been quoted 
(xi. 88. 6), he affirms that tas Mevéas (Miveas cod. P.; cf. Steph. Byz., s. v. 
Meval) iris Fv avrod marpls, wergxice els 7d wedlov, kal mdynolov Tod Tenévous Tar 
édvouacpévwy Tladikdv extice mbduv ditddoyov hy... . dvduate Hadixjv, and 
adds (go. 1): Aovxérios rhy Tladcxhy kxricas . . . . karexdnpovxnoe Thy Suopov 
x#pav. It is clear that Mévacvos and Meval are two forms of the same name, just 
as Aedyriov and Aeovrivn, and are equivalent to Minae. The difference in form, 
in addition to the fact that two authors were followed who referred the same events 


138 ANCIENT ITALY 


We must, on the other hand, pause briefly to discuss Omphace, 
and also Mactorium, Morgantina, and Galerina. Omphace was 
said to be a town of the Sicani (7é dopa Yixavdv), and older than 
Gela itself. From it the Rhodian Antiohemus, the founder of 
Gela, is reported to have carried away a statue which, like many 
other works of art among the Rhodian colonists of Gela and Agri- 
gentum, was held to be the work of Daedalus.* Art critics may 
determine whether our relief should receive a like attribution. It 
would seem in this case that too much weight might easily be laid 
upon such references. It should be taken into account that the 
ancients rightly distinguished between the Siculi and the Sicani. 
Ethnographically such a division has no justification, but from a 
political and geographical standpoint it is entirely borne out by 
what we know of the history and location of these peoples. Gela 
stood, so to speak, in the territory which separated one from the 
other, and if the statement of Pausanias is correct, we may at once 
exclude the supposition that Omphace could have been located at 
S. Mauro, which was in the direction of, or even actually within, 
the territory of the Siculi.? 

As to Mactorium, this was evidently also a very ancient city, 
as is shown by the fact that Philistus speaks of its foundation in 
the first book of his history,3 and by its mention in connection 
with the Geloan revolt as related by Herodotus, this revolt occurred 
before the fifth century at least. From Herodotus we learn that 
Mactorium was tmep T'édns,4 but the events which occurred 
might apply to Niscemi, which is situated on a hill commanding 
to different periods, it seems to me, caused Diodorus to mention twice, under different 
dates, the same event—i. e., the transference of Minae, the native town of Ducetius, 
to the plain, and the founding of Palice. Whether or not this opinion be accepted, 
there is nothing strange in supposing Diodorus guilty of several of these duplica- 
tions, which are of such frequent occurrence in early Greek and Roman history. 


At the very point where he refers to the history of Sybaris (xi. 90) he gives a con- 
spicuous example of double redaction which led to diverse narrations of the same 


facts (cf. xii. 10). 

t Paus. viii. 46. 2; ix. 40. 4. 

2 For the geographical value of the designations Siculi and Sicani, see my 
Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 94 ff. 

3 Philist. apud Steph. Byz. s. v. 4 Herodot. vii. 153. 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 139 


the road between Gela and S. Mauro, or to Mazzarino. At about 
the place where the last-named city is located Ptolemy’ places a 
city called Ma«vpov, which is entirely unknown. This fact has 
several times given rise to the hypothesis that the modern Mazza- 
rino corresponds to the form Maxtwpivos. Naturally it would be 
hazardous to venture any definite opinion upon this point. 

Let us pass on to Morgantina. It has been the custom to locate 
this on Mount Judica, which dominates the plain of Catania and 
stands opposite the mouth of the Simeto. This theory, however, is 
certainly wrong, even though it seems favored by a passage in 
Diodorus which states that when Magon was contending against 
Dionysius I, he encamped év ty ’Ayupuvatwv yopa Tapa Tov 
Xpticav trotapov éyyds THs od00 THs hepovans eis Mopyar- 
tivav.2, This passage, if it stood alone, might justify the placing 
of the city on Mount Judica, but since, as we shall see, many 
other passages prove that it was situated much nearer Syracuse 
and more to the south, we are forced to conclude either that 
Morgantina was the principal city of this entire inland district, 
and that on this account the road of which Diodorus speaks was 
named from it, as from an important center; or else that its terri- 
tory extended so far on that side (as did later that of Caltagirone) 
as to reach the valley of the Chrysas or Dittaino. 

That Morgantina must really be sought on the summit of the 
Heraeans, at a point which marks the boundary between the terri- 
tory of Camarina and that of Syracuse, is seen from Thucydides 
(iv. 65), who, in speaking of the peace of Gela, 424 B. c., concluded 
as a result of the exertions and exhortations of the Syracusan 
Hermocrates, says that there was established trois 6€ Kapapr- 
vaiows Mopyavtivny elvat, apyvpiov taxtov tots Lupaxovaiors 
arodovew.* It is easy to understand why the inhabitants of 

t Ptol. iii. 4.7. 2 Diod. xiv. 95. 2. 

3 That many of the Siculian cities possessed extended territories in antiquity, 
when the island had no more than sixty-eight communes, is natural. Just as in 
antiquity the Centuripini were granted a considerable part of the territory of the 
neighboring towns (Cic. Ver. II. iii, 104), so after the twelfth century Caltagirone 
became mistress of the lands of Fatanasino and Judica; see Amari, Storia det 


Musulmani di Sicilia, III, p. 228. 
4 Beloch, La populazione antica della Sicilia (Palermo, 1889), p. 13, n. 7, is 


140 ANCIENT ITALY 


Camarina, who were continually contending over boundaries with 
Syracuse,? and who were therefore on friendly terms with the 
Leontini, who were likewise enemies of Syracuse,? should have 
sought an outlet toward the plain of Leontini, and have aimed to 
secure a foothold among the Heraean heights which dominated 
such a means of communication. Moreover, that Morgantina 
was really situated on these heights is shown by the other refer- 
ences to it, from which it may be of advantage to derive a few data 
concerning this important Siculian city which we find mentioned 
in the various periods of the early history of the island. 

Diodorus, in speaking of the conquests of Ducetius, imme- 
diately after stating that he founded Minae (probably Palice, see 
above), adds: otpatevoadpuevos 8 él modu akidrdoyov Moypar- 
tivav Kal yepwodmevos avTny ddEav amnvéyKato Tapa Tois Opuoed- 
veot.3 Discussing the wars of Dionysius I against the Siculi, he 
then says that he captured Mévawov and Morgantina.* Finally 
the same author, in speaking of the slave war, says of Salvius 
Tryphon that, having besieged Morgantina, he overran the country 
as far as the plain of Leontini, and adds that he went to the 
lake of the Palici and sacrificed to these divinities.5 Also the 
exile Agathocles, while leading the contingent from Morgantina 
in the war against Syracuse, “‘urben Leontinorum capit.”® From 
all of these passages it is seen very clearly that Morgantina was 
situated on the heights above Minae; but we cannot be equally 
the only one, as far as I know, who on the basis of this passage recognizes that 
Morgantina “should be sought farther to the south than one generally supposes.” 


Without giving reasons, Schubring (Camarina [Palermo, 1882], p. 21) advised the 
substitution of Karavatois for Kayaprivalors. 

Even at the time of the second Athenian expedition, Thucydides (vi. 88) says 
of the inhabitants of Camarina: Tots 6¢ Zupaxoclors det xara 7d Suopov Sidpopor. 


2 Even a few years after the peace of Gela and before the second Athenian 
intervention, we find Camarina inclined toward an alliance with Leontini against 
Syracuse; see Thuc. v. 4; cf. for the following period the fact that from hatred 
of Dionysius the inhabitants of Camarina went to Leontini; Diod. xiii. 113. 

3 Diod. xi. 78. 5. 4 Diod. xiv. 78. 7. 

5 This reference is connected with the fact that the slave conspiracy had its 
origin at the lake of the Palici; see Diod. xxxvi. 3. 

6 Tust. xxii. 2. 2. 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 141 


certain as to whether it stood at Caltagirone, at Granmichele, or at 
some other neighboring place. From the statement of Thucydides, 
Caltagirone would seem to be excluded, for he says that Morgan- 
tina was an object of dispute between Syracuse and Camarina. 
The Syracusans, although giving up the possession of the land, 
wished that their rights of sovereignty be recognized by the pay- 
ment of a sum by Camarina, their ancient colony. From this it 
seems to me evident that Morgantina, like Echetla, must have 
stood above some pass dominating the territory of Camarina and 
Leontini. It is certainly out of the question that Syracuse, which 
was then at the height of her power, should have ceded an inch of 
territory which really belonged to her. Nor does it seem possible 
that Morgantina stood on the site of modern Caltagirone, for the 
reason that the city which did stand there, as appears from its 
position, and as is stated explicitly in the passage from Callias,* 
belonged to the territory of Gela. Even before, in speaking of 
the conclusion of the peace of Gela, Thucydides says that pre- 
vious to the meeting of the congress in that city the inhabitants 
of Camarina and Gela made a truce with each other only.” It 
seems that, if Morgantina had occupied the site of Caltagirone, 
it would not have been mentioned shortly after? in connection 
with the treaty between the Camarinaeans and Syracusans. Mor- 
_gantina should, therefore, be sought on this plateau of the He- 
raeans, but farther to the east. In the museum of Syracuse my 
friend Paolo Orsi recently showed me a large collection of terra- 
cottas, of good Greek workmanship and of various periods, which, 
thanks to his untiring activity, he has succeeded in discovering 
at Terravecchia near Granmichele. Is it possible that Morgan- 
tina should be sought at that place?4 ‘The position of Terra- 

t Callias apud Macrob. v. 19. 25; see above, p. 137, noter. This passage is 
perfectly explained by supposing that Caltagirone marked the limit of the Geloan 
territory. Even in the case (which it is absurd to admit) that cordial relations 
existed between Gela and Syracuse, and that political reasons would have per- 
mitted the latter to dispose of the pass of Caltagirone, it is probable that the 
Camarinaeans would have tried to secure a safe passage in their own territory, 


rather than in that of Gela. 
2 Thuc. iv. 58. 3 Thuc. iv. 65. 


4 Thuc. v. 4, in discussing the travels of the Athenian ambassador Pheax, whe 


142 ANCIENT ITALY 


vecchia and the references in the authors would favor such a 
supposition, and a continuation of the excavations may give a 
definite answer to the question.” 

As far as I know, Galarina alone remains to be discussed. 
With no good reason, authorities from Cluver down have located it 
on the site of modern Gagliano, on the right bank of the Cyamo- 
sorus (Fiume Salso), opposite Agira, in the southern part of the 
island. Cluver, followed by more recent writers, gives weight 
to two references: one in Diodorus,? whose mention of this city 


was endeavoring to rekindle, to the detriment of Syracuse, the war which had been 
ended by the peace of Gela, says that, after winning over the Agrigentines and 
Camarinaeans, he did not have the same success with the Geloans, and, thinking 
it useless to seek out the others (which ?), he returned to Catania by land through 
the country of the Siculi. On the way he exhorted the Leontini, who had taken 
refuge at Bricciniae, a fortress in the Leontine territory, to sustain their struggle 
against Syracuse. That Pheax, instead of going over the pass of Caltagirone to 
reach Geloan territory, went over either that of Granmichele or that of Vizzini, 
which led directly into the Leontine region, seems, if not certain, at least probable. 
Unfortunately, this gives no information concerning the position of Bricciniae, 
which may have been located much lower down, as, for example, at Casale di S 
Basilio where several writers, following De Mauro, place it. The name Bricciniae 
seems entirely Greek; see Herond. Mim. ii. 57: év Bocxlvdnpors; cf. the Bpcxiv- 
ddproc of Rhodes, CIA, I, 262, 1. 19; 262, 1.14. 

t Leaving aside the passage in Plin. N. H. xxiv. 27, which, as is generally 
admitted, alludes to some maritime locality near Syracuse (the Mépyuva of Philistus, 
or the Mepydvy of Polybius ?), the other references to Morgantina are not sufficient 
to determine its location (see Diod. xix. 6; Cic. Verr. II. iii. 47, 103; Liv. xxiv. 36), 
although none of them contradicts in the least our hypothesis, and the reference in 
Livy rather favors it. It is more probable that the Romans during the siege of 
Syracuse would have had their granary near Caltagirone, which is famous for its 
grain supply, rather than in the distant territory of Mount Judica. 

At Mount Judica, however, there must have been an ancient city. From Diod. 
iv. 80. 4 we learn that the temple of the Matres at Engyum was about 100 stades 
from Agyrium, and this circumstance, together with the fact that this cult was of 
Cretan (or Geloan) origin, leads me to think that Mount Judica, which was easilv 
accessible to the Geloans by way of Caltagirone, may have been the site of Engyum 
It is generally located, it is true, at Gangi, but this designation is in absolute con- 
tradiction to the distance in stades as given above, and does not suit the situation 
of this town, lost among the mountains, and only at a much later period accessible 
to Greek civilization. It is also wrong to place Engyum at Troina, as I once held; 
see my Osserv. cit., p. 127, n. 2. At that place possibly Piacus was located; see 
above, chap. xi. 

2 Diod. xix. 104. 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 143 


makes him think it was located near Centuripa, and one in Stephen 
of Byzantium, who (s. v.) calls it a colony of the Siculian Morges.* 
On the basis of the latter statement Cluver rightly decides that it 
should be sought not far from Morgantina, but, having wrongly 
located the one, he naturally erred in placing the other. Moreover, 
Cluver was influenced by the apparent resemblance between the 
names Galarina and Gagliano. The passage in Diodorus is too 
long to be quoted, but it seems to me that whoever makes a careful 
study, with no preconceived ideas, of chapters 102-4 of the nine- 
teenth book of Diodorus, which speaks of the war of the Syracusan 
exiles against Agathocles, will find no more arguments for placing 
Galarina near Centuripa (which is mentioned just before) than for 
considering it to have been situated within the territory of Gela, 
of which mention is made directly after the reference to the taking 
of Galarina by the soldiers of Agathocles. On the other hand, the 
passage quoted from Stephen would induce us to place Galarina in 
Geloan territory, on one of the Heraean heights, since it is evident 
that, if Morgantina was the center of the Morgetes, one of the 
most ancient Italic peoples of the island, as ancient writers also 
held,? it is probable that Galarina, which was a colony of the legend- 
ary founder of Morgantina, should be sought in its neighborhood. 
I am confirmed in this hypothesis by the fact that Morgantina 
and Galarina are the only two cities in Siculian territory which 
from the beginning of the fifth century (before 480 B.c.) struck 
coins with Greek legends and types. This could hardly be said 
of a city situated outside the sphere of action of the most ancient 
and powerful Greek colonies, and it forbids our placing Galarina 
at Gagliano; but it is explained, and fairly well at that, if we con- 
sider that Morgantina was in the center of a region which, thanks 
to its fertility and position, was rapidly conquered and civilized 
by the Leontini, Megarians, and Syracusans on the one hand, 
and by the Camarinaeans and Geloans on the other. This fact 


t Cluv., Sic. Ant. (ed. Lugd. Bat., 1619), pp. 330 ff. This opinion is held, for 
example, by Holm and by Freeman-Lupus; see the maps of these authors. 

2. Ch strab. V;.p:.257 C.; vi. p:1270 G: 3 Head, Hist. num., pp. 121, 137. 

4 I frankly confess that it seems to me absurd to place Galarina, a city which had 
its own coinage before 480 B. c., in such a rough and desert region, where civiliza- 


144 ANCIENT ITALY 


makes it all the more probable that Galarina should be sought 
in the neighborhood of Morgantina; and since we have seen that 
Morgantina must in all probability have stood somewhere in the 
neighborhood of Granmichele, it seems right to suppose that 
Galarina should be sought, not to the east of this—for there, prob- 
ably, was Echetla—but to the west, where Caltagirone stands, or 
else on the adjacent height of S. Mauro, since either place is 
favorable for the location of a fortified town, as Galarina 
certainly was.* 

The supposition that Galarina occupied the now solitary and 
deserted site of S. Mauro is possibly favored by the Bacchic sub- 
ject on the upper zone of our relief. If the relief, as it appears, 
is of architectural character, and formed part of some public 
monument, it should be noticed that Galarina is the only city 
of this region in which the cult of Dionysus is attested. Its 
archaic coins show the presence of such a cult, together with that 
of Zeus. 

By this I do not mean to assert that we may be certain of the 
name of the city which occupied the height of S. Mauro, but, at 
any rate, the above observations show that among the Heraeans 
there existed a much more developed state of civilization than is 
generally admitted by modern writers, in opposition to the data 
furnished by ancient authors, and that several of the most ancient 
cities which are attributed to other regions should more probably 


tion did not obtain a foothold till toward the middle of the fifth century at the time 
of Archonides and the final years of Ducetius, much later than it developed among 
the Heraean Mountains. There was no coinage in the region where Gagliano is 
now situated until a fairly late period. Agyrium alone commenced to coin money 
about 415 B. C., and it occupied a much more central position than the other cities 
of the district. It is also from about this period that we commence to have coins 
from Piacus, which seems to have stood in the region in which Gagliano is located. 
I naturally leave out Abacaenum, which had relations with the neighboring 
coast,and note that Centuripa and Herbita did not coin money till the fourth 
century B. C. 


t That Galarina occupied a strong position appears, aside from the passage in 
Diod. xix. 104, already quoted, also from xvi. 67 of thesame author, from which it 
may possibly be concluded that at the time of Timoleon it was one of the fortresses 
occupied by the Campanians. 


ARCHAIC GREEK RELIEF OF S. MAURO 145 


be placed here.t Whether Mactorium rather than Galarina 
should be placed at S. Mauro, and whether Morgantina, which 
vied with Enna among the most famous Siculian cities of the Greek 
period, was located at Caltagirone rather than at Granmichele or 
Vizzini, it will be for future excavations to decide. 

There is little hope, it is true, of discovering inscriptions bearing 
ethnical names. Sicily offers too barren a field, from an epigraphical 
point of view, to admit of our placing much reliance on such possi- 
bilities. Ofmuch more assistance is the greater or less frequency 
with which local coin types come to light. These were certainly 
never widely ‘distributed, and from places such as Galarina are 
very rare.? 

The discovery of a relief of the technical excellence of the one 
we have just examined should give impetus to future excavations 
on the height of S. Mauro. The region seems fertile in every kind 
of antiquities,3 and it would be of the greatest importance to 
discover other sculptured remains of the same nature. It is 
hardly conceivable that our relief wasan isolated example and 
stood alone. It much more likely formed part of a temple or 
sacred inclosure. And since it is probable that the city which 
was situated on the height of S. Mauro soon disappeared, and 

t Also Herbessus, as I have noted Osserv. s. storia d. Sicilia (Palermo, 1888), 
pp. 44 ff., must have been situated among the Heraeans, but rather more to the 
east. The corrupt passage in Vibius Sequester, “‘Herbesus quiet ¢ Endrius oppido 
Alorino decurrit per fines Helori,” together with the very rare coin EPBHZZINON, 
restruck over a coin of Syracuse, induces me to place it, if not at Buscemi, as I 
have already suggested, at least somewhere near this place, toward the summit of 
Mount Lauro, which commands the valley of the Tellaro (Helorus) and the other 
streams which descend into the territory of Leontini. The passage in Vibius shows 
clearly that Herbessus could not have been situated at Pantalica, in the center of 
the Anapo valley. 

2 Imhoof-Blumer, op. cit., p. 18, knows of but three such coins. 

3 This results from the statements of Perticone (see above, p. 131, note 2), 
who (0. cit., p. 21) speaks of the existence of walls, etc. His information is not 
accurate, and some of his data are open to criticism (see above, p. 131, note 4), 
but the presence of the relief in question shows that it is worthy of consideration 
and deserves verification. I might add that Professor Di Bernardi spoke of 
having brought from S. Mauro, and placed in the same garret with the re- 
lief, a fragment of an inscription, which at the time of my visit could not be 
found. 


146 ANCIENT ITALY 


was succeeded on the opposite height by the Saracen Caltagirone, 
it is not extravagant to hope that under the soft clay-loam of the 
former, there are still concealed other precious remains of early 
Greek art.* 


t As a result of the above article, Professor Orsi, director of the museum of 
Syracuse, made a summary exploration at S. Mauro; see N. S., 1903, P- 432, 
where he also notes the adaptability of the region for purposes of defense, and the 
presence of material from the Stone Age on the plateau of Piano della Fiera. At 
S. Mauro Professor Orsi found traces of a temple, and noteworthy traces of a Greek 
settlement of the sixth century B.c. He has promised further excavations in that 
locality; see Atti del Congr. internaz. di scienze storiche (Rome, 1904), p. 179. 


XIII 


THE DEFEAT OF THE ATHENIANS AT THE ASSINARUS 


In the immortal pages where Thucydides tells of the Athenian 
expedition against Syracuse, he describes clearly the road followed 
by the Athenians when, having been conquered in the naval battle 
and shut up in the harbor, they sought safety in flight by land. 
Having tried in vain to go up a valley leading to the Acraean height, 
and to gain the plateau beyond, they broke camp in the middle of 
the night, changed their course toward the sea, and at dawn 
reached the road leading to Helorus. This road they followed 
toward the river Cacyparis, hoping to ascend its valley, and thus 
to gain the plateau of Acrae.? 

At the Cacyparis, instead of meeting the Siculi whom they 
were expecting, they fell in with the guard of the Syracusans. 
Through these they forced their way and, crossing the river, pro- 
ceeded toward another river, called the Erineus. In the mean- 
time Gylippus and the Syracusans had, about noon (7repi apiorov 
épav, vii. 81), overtaken the rear guard of the fugitives, who 
were commanded by Demosthenes and were proceeding slowly 
and in disorder. After a struggle which lasted many hours (6 
népas), Demosthenes and the Athenians to the number of 6,000, 
having been abandoned by a portion of their allies, capitulated, 
and were at once conducted to Syracuse. The front division, 
commanded by Nicias, had, on the other hand, proceeded rapidly 
and in good order, and was about six miles ahead when the rear 
guard was surprised by Gylippus. They continued to march till 
they reached the Erineus, where they camped ona height. Nicias, 
says Thucydides, thought that safety lay in hastening, in avoiding 
battle, and in retreating as rapidly as possible.? 

On the following day Nicias was informed of the capitulation 
of Demosthenes, but did not believe it, and the day passed in 


t Thuc. vii. 78-81. * Thuc. vii. 81-83. 
147 


148 ANCIENT ITALY 


negotiations and skirmishes. The day after, Nicias gave orders 
to break camp early and to continue the march toward the Assi- 
narus. This the Athenians were in haste to reach, both because 
they thought their troubles would be lessened after crossing the. 
river (oidpevor padv te opiow écecOar iv d:aB@ou Tov TroTaporv, 
84), and because they were tired and thirsty. But no sooner did 
they reach the water than they broke ranks and rushed in, each 
man endeavoring to cross first and to quench his thirst. The 
Syracusans pressed them closely, and even crossed the river and 
hurled missiles upon them from the steep banks («pnuva@des) on 
the opposite side. The Athenian army was entirely defeated. 
Those who did not perish, or succeed in escaping, were taken 
prisoners and shut up in the quarries, where there were incarcerated 
7,000 of the 40,000 who had attempted to escape; and of these 
the greater portion perished miserably from exposure and hunger. 

Such, in brief, is the sad account as given by Thucydides. 

The Helorine road, which the Athenians followed, is known, 
and we also recognize the river Cacyparis in the modern Cassabile. 
There is, on the other hand, some uncertainty concerning the 
Erineus and the Assinarus. 

Holm, the most learned writer on ancient Sicilian history, and 
at the same time the author of the best topographical work on 
Syracuse, supposes that the Erineus was the torrent which today 
is dry, and is known by the name of the Cavallata, and that the 
Assinarus was the Falconara, or Fiume di Noto. He thus opposes 
the opinion of those, such as Leake, who identify the Erineus 
with the Falconara, and the Assinarus with the river which in 
antiquity was termed the Elorus and which is popularly called the 
Tellaro.* : 

The arguments of those who oppose Holm are as follows: 
Plutarch? says that, to perpetuate the memory of the victory at 
the Assinarus, the festival termed Assinaria was instituted. This 


t Holm, Geschichte Siciliens, II, pp. 400 ff.; Die Stadt Syrakus im Alterthum, 
pp. 154 ff. I make use of the edition revised, with the author’s consent, by Lupus, 
because it is more accessible to students than the rather costly and less common 
Italian edition published at needless expense by our minister of instruction. 


2Plut. Nic. 28. 





SSINARUS 


ANCIENT COLUMN NEAR THE A 


a eer 
eee ear oe 


— 
a ee ao 
p — 
"= <nie 


_ 


_ 
a - 
"7 


an 
ce os 





DEFEAT OF ATHENIANS AT ASSINARUS 149 


+ 

is the same as the "EA@pios ayov of which Hesychius speaks,? and 
it was in remembrance of this festival that not far from the banks 
of the Helorus was placed the Greek column which still exists.? 
Holm responds by observing that it is not probable that the river 
Helorus, which was well known in antiquity, should also have 
been called Assinarus, and that this latter name appears only in 
the references to the defeat of the Athenians. He also notes that 
the column in question cannot be proved to be of that period, and 
that it is not near the Helorus, but between this (the Tellaro) 
and the Fiume di Noto or Falconara. He adds that the Falconara 
has the steep banks which Thucydides mentions as a characteristic 
of the Assinarus. 

A few years ago, while planning to visit some of the places 
made famous by the pages of Thucydides, I decided to go over 
the road followed by the Athenians in their flight, and to see the 
two rivers and the place where the column is situated. The result 
of this excursion is the conviction that the Erineus is the Fiume 
di Noto, and the Assinarus the modern Tellaro. It also seems 
probable that the opinion of those who hold that the column was 
erected to recall the victory of the Syracusans is correct. 

The first element to be studied before arriving at any definite 
conclusion is, of course, the text of Thucydides. We have seen 
that both the army of Demosthenes and the front division com- 
manded by Nicias had crossed the Cacyparis, and that at about 
the hour of the midday meal Nicias was already 6 miles, or 50 
stades, ahead of his colleague. Between the Cacyparis or Cassa- 
bile and the Cavallata the distance is about 67 stades; between the 
Cavallata and the Falconara about 13 stades.3 At noon Nicias 
had to be at least 50 stades from the Cacyparis. If, then, the 
Erineus, where he arrived in the afternoon (toward evening ?), 
were the Cavallata, he could not have gone more than 17 stades 


t Hesych. ad v. Eddpus dydv- redotuevos ért’EXwpov rorayod. 


2 Represented by Houel, Voyage, III, Plate 103. It is strange that in the 
N. S., 1899, p. 242, Orsi should call this monument ‘almost unknown.” 


3 For the distance in stades, and for the length of the stade in Thucydides, 
see Holm, Die Stadt Syrakus, p. 24, note. 


150 ANCIENT ITALY 


(about 2 miles) in half a day. If the Erineus is the Falconara, 
he made something less than 30 stades (34 miles). The army of 
Nicias was just as tired as that of Demosthenes, both having 
marched all night.t This explains to a certain extent only why 
it went so slowly during the second half of the day. But this is 
not enough. It may also be supposed that the crossing of the 
Erineus took some time, and that Nicias, having arrived at a 
valley which he proposed to ascend to arrive at the Acraean plateau 
inhabited by the allied Siculi, should have delayed, in order that 
the rear guard, of which he had received no news, might come up. 
The truth of this latter supposition is shown by the fact that on 
the following day Nicias would not believe the enemy when 
informed of the capitulation of Demosthenes. 

From this it is evident that Nicias advanced slowly after the 
period of the noonday meal, and that the text of Thucydides does 
not offer sufficient data for deciding whether he encamped at the 
Cavallata or at the Falconara. Nevertheless, if it is considered 
that he had planned with Demosthenes to ascend the valley of the 
Cacyparis,? and was prevented from doing this by the Syracusans, 
it seems probable that he halted at the Erineus for the same purpose. 
Otherwise he would have gone much farther and, being anxious to 
escape quickly from danger,3 would have marched all the after- 
noon. Thus he would have gone more than two miles, or more 
than three and a half miles, a distance which in a level country an 
army makes in an hour, even if—as was not certainly the case 
here—it is harassed by the enemy. A glance at a good orological 
and hydrographical map of the region shows that the only available 
way for Nicias to carry out his purpose was through the valley 
of the Falconara, which, just as that of the Cassabile, leads toward 
the plateau where Netum, the city of the Siculi, at some period 
was located.4 It is also evident that in that region there are but 
three rivers, the Cassabile, the Falconara, and the Tellaro; i.e., 


t Thuc. vii. 81. 1. 2 Thuc. vii. 80. 5. 3 Thuc. vii. 81. 3. 


4It is not certain that Netum stood there at the date in question, but such an 
important position from a strategic point of view had probably already been occu- 
pied by the Siculi, who were enemies of Syracuse and friends of the Athenians. 


DEFEAT OF ATHENIANS AT ASSINARUS I51 


the three rivers which Thucydides names, the Cacyparis, the 
Erineus, and the Assinarus. 

There is no reason, therefore, for identifying the Erineus with 
a dry torrent bed such as the Cavallata. It is true, as Holm notes, 
that according to Thucydides? .the first autumn rains had fallen 
four days before the battle at the Assinarus (September 12, 413 
B.c.).? It is also true, as is justly brought out by Holm, that 
the streams of Sicily have at present less water than in antiquity, 
on account both of earthquakes and the destruction of the forests. 
It should be noted, however, that the rains could not swell for a 
very long period a torrent less than five miles long, as was the 
Cavallata. Moreover, the destruction of the forests does not 
affect the region in question, because then, as now, it was planted 
with olives.3 

Reference is also made to the festival termed Assinaria, which 
is quite possibly the "EX@pios aywv of Hesychius, since we know 
of no other victory gained by the Syracusans on the banks of the 
Helorus. We know, on the other hand, of a defeat which they 
there suffered when they were conquered by Hippocrates of Gela.* 
It is evident, however, that Gelo and Hiero of Gela, the tyrants of 
Syracuse, would not have undermined their well-known popularity 
by commemorating such a victory. They were anxious rather to 
have it forgotten that they came from Gela. Nor would the Syra- 
cusan democracy, after the expulsion of the Deinomenid Thrasy- 
bulus, have celebrated the victory of the powerful tryant from 
that city. 

A still better proof that the Helorus and the Assinarus were 
the same river is the column which is situated not far from the 
Tellaro. It is a tall and beautiful Doric shaft, such as Syracuse 
may well have raised to commemorate a victory. It is not exactly 

t Thuc. vii. 79. 

2 For the date see Holm, Die Stadt Syrakus, p. 158. 3 Thuc. vii. 81. 4. 

4 Herodot. vii. 154; Sch. Pind. Nem. ix. 95. 

5 It is not constructed of superposed drums, as are the columns of the Doric 
temples of Selinus and Agrigentum, but of various pieces joined together and 


formerly covered with stucco. Moreover, it is not fluted, as Doric columns gen- 
erally are. This does not prevent its being a fifth-century monument, since it is to be 


152 ANCIENT ITALY 


on the Helorus, but is much nearer it than it is to the Falconara, 
being less than a mile from the former, and over two miles from 
the latter. That it is not situated exactly on the banks of the 
Tellaro proves nothing. The battle—or, better yet, the slaughter 
—of the Assinarus took the name of the river for the reason that 
the last act of the drama took place at the river. But Thucydides? 
states clearly that the battle commenced at dawn, when Nicias 
moved from the banks of the Erineus in order to gain the Assinarus. 
The column therefore is situated near the river on the banks of 
which the battle ended, on a low plateau not far from the sea 
and dominating the adjacent mouth of the Helorus, and its posi- 
tion would confirm the account of Thucydides. Nevertheless, 
the lack of a good architectural study of this column, and of the 
other which is situated on the banks of the upper Tellaro at the 
place called Saccollino, forbids the definite acceptance of this 
argument. There exists also the possibility that the Athenians 
may have tried to cross the stream higher up to the west. 
Moreover, it cannot be asserted that the banks of the Falconara 
only are steep. Those of the Tellaro, where it empties into the 
sea, on the side toward the column are in several places steep 
enough to explain the passage in Thucydides, as I was able to 
verify when I visited the region.3 
considered more as a pedestal to bear a dedicated object, such as a tripod or a Nike, 
than as a column. By way of comparison it seems right to mention the high 
(4.60 m.) triangular base found at Olympia in 1875, which bore the Nike of Paeo- 
nius, and which was dedicated by the Messinians of Naupactus about 421 B. c. (see 
Paus. v.26. 1; Roehl, Inscr. antig., no. 348; Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, II, Plate 
34). For the sepulchral character of the monument see the final note of this 
chapter. 

t Holm-Lupus (Die Stadt Syrakus, p. 158) wrongly assert that the column 
stands between the Tellaro and the Fiume di Noto; cf. the map of the Italian Stato 
Maggiore, where the column, called today, as at the time of Fazello, Ja Pizzuta, 
is indicated. It is situated about half-way between the Tellaro and another small 
torrent farther to the north, the Laufi, a name already known to Fazello (see Dec. 
i. 4. 2), who also speaks of the column situated at the place called Saccollino. 


2 Thuc. vii. 84. 


31 have on my side Pindar, who in speaking of the deeds of Chromius says 
(Nem. ix. 95): Babuxphuvows 5’ dud’ dxrais ‘EXdpov. Another argument in favor 
of my assertion is as follows: Thucydides (vii. 84. 1 f.) says that Nicias left the 


~ 


DEFEAT OF ATHENIANS AT ASSINARUS 153 


There is not, therefore, sufficient reason for identifying the 
Erineus with the Cavallata, and the Assinarus with the Falconara. 
The probabilities are much more in favor of the supposition that 
the Falconara is the Erineus, and the Assinarus the same as the 
Helorus, the modern Tellaro. 

Is it possible, however, that the river Helorus could also have 
had the name of Assinarus? Certainly it would not be the first 
case of one river having two names. It would take too long to 
enumerate all the rivers which either have changed their names, 
or have different names for different portions of their course. 
The Olbius, for example, was a river of Arcadia which certain 
Arcadians called the Aroanius.’ At the time of Lysander a certain 
river of Thessaly was called the Hoplias, and at a later period the 
Isomantus.?. One also naturally thinks of the Padus, which the 
Greeks called the Eridamus and the Ligurians the Bodincomagus.$ 
The Danubius, too, was also called the Istrus, and at an early 
period was known as the Matoas.4 The Eurotas near Tarentum 
is better known as the Galaesus.5 The Tiber is said to have first 
been called the Albula.° According to Vibius Sequester, Faneus 
was another name for the Siris, and Titaressus for the Thessalian 
Orcus.?. To take an example from Sicily itself, Heisterbegk® has 
shown that the river Sicanus was identical with the southern 
Himera. Even the Helorus had a third name, as we learn from 
Vibius Sequester,? who says: ‘‘Herbesos qui et + Endrius. [i. e. 


Erineus at dawn, and that when he arrived at the Assinarus the Athenians rushed 
into the river on account of their fatigue and thirst. The fact that the weather was 
still warm, and that the Athenians, being harassed by the Syracusans, had proceeded 
slowly for the 34 miles between the two rivers, accounts for their thirst so shortly 
after breaking camp. This would be much less intelligible did we admit that they 
proceeded from the Cavallata to the Falconara, since these two streams are but a 
little over a mile apart. 

t Paus. viii. 14. 3. 

2 Plut. Lys. 29. 8. 4 Steph. Byz.,s. v. Advoufis. 

3 Metrod. Sceps. apud Plin. N. H. iii. 122. 5 Polyb. viii. 38. 8. 

6 Liv. i. 3; cf. the names of Rumon and Serra which are also given the Tiber 
in Serv. ad Aen. vill. 63. 

7Vib:-SG:; 8: V: 

8 Heisterbegk, Fragen der dltesten Geschichte Siciliens (Berlin, 1869), pp. 45 ff. 

9 That there really was a river Herbessus is shown by the coins of the city of 


154 ANCIENT ITALY 


Elorius] oppido Alorino [i.e. Elorino] decurrit per fines Elori.” 
Fazello? tells us that at his time the lower course of the Tellaro 
was not called thus, but Abisws—a name in which it is not difficult 
to discover the ancient Herbessus, or the third name of the river. 
Two or even three names for the same stream are not surprising, 
if we consider that the Helorus, just as the others mentioned above, 
wasaboundaryriver. The name “Helorus,” which also belongs to 
the fortress at the mouth of the river, seems to be of Syracusan origin 
(cf.’EXapros ayav and odds ’EXwpiv}). Herbessus was certainly 
the name givenit by the inhabitants of Hermessus who dwelt along its 
upper banks. The name “ Assinarus” seems to indicate its marshy 
lower course, the ‘‘praepingue solum stagnantis Helori.’’? 
According to a law which holds good for both ancient and 
modern times in Sicily, cities often derive their names from rivers 
which flow past them, and vice versa. Moreover, the city of 
Helorus was not situated on the banks of the Tellaro, but on those 
of the neighboring Laufi, where Fazello (/oc. cit.) saw many and 
conspicuous ruins, while at the mouth of the Tellaro was situated 
the fottress of Helorus, which is also mentioned by Pliny.4 From 
these facts we are led to the conclusion that Helorus was originally 
the name of the small stream which today is called the Laufi, and 


that name, on which the river is represented with the usual head and neck of an 
androcephalous bull (see Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, p. 19, Plate A, Fig. 21). 
These coins still further prove, what I have elsewhere attempted to demonstrate 
(see Alcune osserv. sulla storia e sulla amministr. d. Sicilia durante il dominio 
romano [Palermo, 1888], pp. 46 ff., note), that Herbessus should not be sought, as it 
usually is, along the Anapo, or at Pantalica or Sortino, but rather opposite Acrae 
and near Buscemi, where the streams of the Anapus, and of the Herbessus or upper 
Helorus, take their origin. 

1 Fazello, loc. cit.: “et defluens pontem ipsum Bayhachemum, qui eius ripas 
utrimque colligat, abluit, et inde, neglecto priori nomine, Abisus adpellatus ... . 
in mare illabitur.” Cf. supra “Elorus fluvius . . . . Abisus hodie vulgo dictus.” 

2 Verg. Aen. iii. 698. In the same way the Bacchiglione had one name near 
Vicetia and another near Patavium; cf. Nissen, [talische Landeskunde, II, p. 218. 

3 Heisterbegk, Fragen der dltesten Geschichte Siciliens, pp. 21 ff. Even today 
the Sicilian streams of this region are named from the neighboring cities, as Fiume 
di Noto, Fiume di Ragusa, Fiume di Scicli. The names “Assinaro” and “ Ermi- 
ninio,”’ which figure on modern geographical maps, are of literary origin. 

4Plin. N. H. xxxii. 16. It lay on a hill, today termed ‘‘Stambagi,” where 
I picked up fragments of Greek pottery. 


DEFEAT OF ATHENIANS AT ASSINARUS 155 


that, when the city spread from its banks as far as the mouth of the 
Tellaro, the name passed over to designate the mouth and lower 
course of that river, which there lost its earlier name of Assinarus.* 

That the Tellaro is really the Assinarus the following argu- 
ment makes still more probable, or even certain. During my 
visit to the valleys of the Tellaro and the neighboring streams I 
asked of every peasant I encountered the names of the rivers, 
knowing how little the map of the Italian Stato Maggiore is to be 
trusted in this regard. The peasants of the territory of Modica 
always asserted that the Tellaro was called u Teddaru, while those 
of Noto, who dwell nearer the stream, constantly repeated the 
form Atiddaru. This made me suspect that the name Atiddaru 
has been wrongly interpreted by geographers and map-makers as 
a Teddaru, or tl Tellaro. A similar mistake was made by tran- 
scribing as /’ Amato the name of the Calabrian river Lamato, the 
ancient Lametus, and today termed also Fiume di S. Ippolito. 
The form /’Amato unfortunately figures on many otherwise excel- 
lent maps.?_ It at once seemed evident to me that Atiddaru was 
the Sicilian equivalent for the ’Acoivapos of Thucydides, and when 
I later came across the work of Fazello (/oc. cit.), I noted with 
pleasure that he called the river A‘ellarus, a name which must 
henceforth be substituted for the other on geographical maps.% 


t Only by admitting that the Helorus was originally identical with the Laufi 
can we explain the ‘“undae clamosus Helorus” of Silius Italicus xiv. 269. See 
Fazello, loc. cit.; Cluver, Sic. Ant., p. 185. On the map of the Italian Stato Mag- 
giore the Laufi is termed Elaro, a name of obviously literary origin. Professor 
Mattia Di Martino, of Noto, writes that this name is unknown to the inhabitants 
there, who commonly term the stream Ciumistieddu (fiumicello) di Laufi. See, 
however, the differing views on the Laufi advanced by my pupil and friend, Professor 
Ciaceri, “La disfatta degli Atenesi all’ Assinaro,” in my Studi storici (Pisa, 1904), 
ITT, pp. 345 ff. 

a The river Lamatus in the Ionian form Aduyros was already known to Heca- 
taeus, fr. 40 (Miiller, F. H.G.;I, p. 3). It is to be deplored that on the excellent 
map reduced from that of the Italian Stato Maggiore and published under the direc- 
tion of Kiepert, the Falconara, which the peasants today term Fiume di Noto, is 
called the Asinaro. 

3 My learned friend, Professor Fumi, formerly my colleague in the University 
of Palermo, writes me as follows: ‘’Agalvapos seems to be Doric, and to mean a 
stream of mud (dots, see Il. xxi. 321, possibly from dooi=do-r-: vaépo may be 
connected with the root sna and with vfaos, etc.). It may be supposed that the 


156 ANCIENT ITALY 


If, however, the Assinarus and the Helorus are identical, we 
must explain why the Helorus is continually mentioned by ancient 
writers, from Herodotus to Vergil, and yet when they speak of the 
river by the banks of which the slaughter of the Athenians occurred, 
they always give it the name of the Assinarus. 

It is not difficult to explain this fact. Aside from Thucydides, 
the battle and the name of the Assinarus are recorded by Diodorus, 
Plutarch, and Pausanias. Diodorus had before him various his- 
torians, among others Thucydides; Plutarch consulted Thucy- 
dides and Philistus;* Pausanias, whether or not indirectly, as 
through Ptolemy, had before him Philistus, the well-known imitator 
of Thucydides.? In a word, the earliest and most authoritative 
historian of this war was consulted by all the later writers, includ- 
ing those of the Siceliots. The name ‘“‘Helorus” was known to 
Thucydides (cf. 650s *EXwpiv7n), but since he calls the river where the 
defeat of the Athenians took place the Assinarus, and not the Helo- 
rus, all of his successors copied from him that name, even through 
they may have known that the river was also called the Helorus.3 
reading in Thucydides is better” (Professor Fumi here refers to the form “Actvapos, 
which occurs in our texts of Diod. xiii. 19; Plut. Nic. 27; and Paus. vii. 16. 5), 
‘“‘and that oo was pronounced between the teeth, and later became tr. The change 
from 7 to J, and from this to d (in Sicilian d and dd), is obvious. Thus there is no 
doubt that the designation Atzdddru used by the peasants of Noto is, with the cus- 


tomary acceptance of the long va, the same as the ancient "Agalvapos. The inhabi- 
tants of Modica change the first voiceless a tq the article.” 


t For the relation between the accounts of Diodorus and Plutarch, and that of 
Thucydides, cf. the diligent observations of Holm, Geschichte Siciliens, II, pp. 341 ff., 
and especially for our case pp. 354 ff. 

2 That Pausanias, indirectly according to all probability, repeats data derived 
from Philistus in speaking of Sicilian affairs, is seen from an examination of the 
passages i. 13. 9; v. 23-6, and also i. 29. 12, where he mentions the events of this 
war, including the surrender of Demosthenes and Nicias; cf. Philist. fr. 46 in 
Miiller, F. H. G., I, p. 189. 

3 Since the above was written, trial excavations have been made by the Bureau 
of Excavations of Syracuse near the column in question; see N. S., 1899, p. 242. 
These show clearly the sepulchral character of the monument. The tomb at the 
foot of the shaft is said to have been again employed for burial by a family of He- 
lorus at a later period, about the time of Hiero II. The column may well have been 
erected in the fifth century to commemorate the dead who fell in battle. 


XIV 
THE PRETENDED EXPEDITION OF AGATHOCLES 
AGAINST ®OINIKH 


Among the stratagems of Agathocles Polyaenus? recounts an 
incident in which he is supposed to ask the Syracusans for two 
thousand soldiers, to enable him to accept an invitation from 
some who were seeking to put Powvécy into his hands.?, The men 
were granted, but Agathocles, when he had received what he 
desired, took no more heed of Poivi«n,3 but went off to take certain 
fortresses near Tauromenium. 

At first sight it would seem as if Polyaenus meant to speak of 
a maritime exepdition of Agathocles against the Phoenicians. 
Droysen,* however, thought differently, and advanced the hypoth- 
esis, which was also accepted by Holm,’ that we have here to 
deal neither with the Phoenicians nor with the island Phoenicusa of 
the Aeolian group, but with Pozvicn, the Epirote city opposite Cor- 
cyra, and that the incident refers to the expedition which Agathocles 
made to Corcyra in 300 B.C. at the time when he defeated the 
Macedonians led by Cassander.® In his history of Agathocles 
Schubert opposes this hypothesis, which seems to him untenable: 

Aside from other improbabilities, from grammatical reasons alone... . 
since as the name of a city the word ®ouwixn would not have the article, and 
the inhabitants of a city named Powlxn could not bear the name of ®olvxes. 
Apparently Polyaenus found in his sources that Agathocles had spoken of an 
expedition against the ®olmxes (i. e., Carthaginians), and, in his haste, after 
the word da8nodpevos falsely construed the name of the country from Polvxes.7 

Since Schubert himself was obliged to admit that Polyaenus 


t Polyaen. v. 3. 6. - 
2 Polyaen. ibid.: ws dtaBnoduevos és Thy Povixny, Pdoxwy TOv éxel Tivds wpodi- 
dévras wera orovd7js avrév Kader, 


3 Ibid.: Polwée péev uwaxpav xalpev &pn. 

4 Droysen, Histoire de I’ Hellénisme (Paris, 1883), II, p. 532, n. 1 a. 

5 Holm, Geschichte Siciliens, II, p. 479. 6 Diod. xxi. 2. 
7 Schubert, Geschichte des Agathokles (Breslau, 1887), pp. 200 f. 


$7 


158 ANCIENT ITALY 


did not faithfully repeat his source, and that he created the form 
®o.vikn, I do not see why one might not consider that some other 
like mistake was made, as, for example, that the author of the 
stratagems may have confused the Epirote city Powvikn with the 
Asiatic region, and have added the word ®otmxes on his own 
initiative. However, that in this passage the Epirote city is not 
meant is evident. When, after the expedition to Africa, Agatho- 
cles undertook the war against the peoples of Magna Graecia and 
against Corcyra, he was king. He was master of half of Sicily 
and had entire control over the destinies of Syracuse. He also had 
at his disposal an excellent army, composed for the most part of 
mercenaries whom he enrolled at his pleasure according to the 
amount of money at his disposal or which he promised, and had 
no need of resorting to pretexts for demanding two thousand 
soldiers of the Syracusans, nor reason for concealing the real enemy 
whom he proposed to attack. It is evident—and it is strange that 
the historians of Agathocles have overlooked this fact—that the 
statement of Polyaenus refers to the period of his life which 
either preceded or was but slightly later than his being made 
otpaTnyos (317 B.C.), a time when he was not as yet absolute 
master of the lives and property of the Syracusans.? 

The hypothesis advanced by Schubert that Polyaenus alludes 
to an expedition against the Carthaginians is at first sight plausible. 
An examination of the words ¢doKxv tov éxei Tas mpodiddvtas 
peTa oTrovdns avTov Karey, however, shows clearly enough that 
the sources of Polyaenus made mention, not of a region, nor of 
Poivxes, but of a city or fortress which Agathocles said would be 
handed over by traitors. It seems to me that the solution of our 
problem is made easy from every standpoint if we admit that 
Polyaenus found in his sources the statement that Agathocles pre- 
tended to have been summoned by traitors of the maritime city 
of Potw£. As is seen from Appian and the Itineraries, this city 
was situated not far from Cape Coccynus, about twenty miles 
north of Tauromenium,? the fortress against which the attack of 


3 Diod: xxi. 2: 25-3. 2 Diod. xix. 5 f. 
3 That the Potmé of Appian (B.C. v. 110) is the same as the Palma or Tama- 


PRETENDED EXPEDITION OF AGATHOCLES 159 


Agathocles was really directed. The change between Potm& and 
®oivxes is not difficult to explain, and, having once occurred, 
and it being understood whence the meaning of the word and of 
the narration was derived, one understands how the reference to 
an expedition of Agathocles against tv Powviknv was made pos- 
sible.t I am not able, nor do I wish, to decide whether the error 
is due to Polyaenus, or whether he derived it from his direct 
source. In this connection various hypotheses might be evolved, 
all of them probable, but none of them certain. 

It is needless to insist on the fact that the hypothesis which holds 
that the Pot near Tauromenium is meant, is quite probable, 
and that from a historical and geographical point of view it at 
least appears much better than the others mentioned above. I 
prefer instead to discover the approximate date of the expedition 
against the territory of Tauromenium, and to find out why Agatho- 
cles concealed the real end which he had in view. 

From lack of data it is impossible to establish the terminus ante 
quem. It may merely be noted that, after Sosistratus had returned 
to Syracuse only to be driven forth, Agathocles, according to Dio- 
dorus Troté pév iOvebTns dv, ToTe 5é ep’ Hryewovias TeTayMEVvOS, sought 
every occasion to push himself forward, and to show, as_ before 
the walls of Gela, his strategic capacity.2 This all came about 
after Agathocles had attempted to seize Croton and Tarentum, and 
had aided Regium when besieged by Heraclides and by Sosistratus, 
and before the return of the petty tyrant to Syracuse. If we 
bring into relation the aid which Syracuse sent Croton, the more or 
less disinterested services which Agathocles rendered the cities of 
Magna Graecia, and also the expedition of Alexander of Epirus, 
in favor of these same cities, and against the Brettians and Luca- 
nians (Cc. 335-331 B. C.), we come to the conclusion that Agathocles, 
ricium of the Itineraries was noted first by Corcia, Storia d. due Sicilie (Naples, 
1852), IV, p. 88, and then by Holm, Beitrage zur Berichtigung der Karte des alten 
Siciliens (Liibeck, 1866), Praef. p. 11. 

t Certainly in the first sources the inhabitants of Potué were not recorded as 


Poluxes. According to Siceliot analogy as brought out, e. g., by Steph. Byz. 
(s. v. "ABaxatvov), the derived form would be Powmkivos. 


2 Diod. xix. 4. 


160 ~ ANCIENT ITALY 


who was born about 361 B.c.,’ held the office of general toward 
330 B. C., when he was about thirty years of age. It is impossible, 
however, to determine accurately the date of the relations of 
Syracuse with these cities, or to verify that which it is merely 
possible to surmise; namely, that there was some relation between 
the aid sent by Syracuse to Croton and the expedition of Alexander 
of Epirus. In any case, the results attained are very indefinite. It 
may be, however, that Syracuse fought in favor of Croton even after 
the battle of Pandosia in which Alexander perished (c. 331 B. C.). 

We are led to less vague conclusions by the statement of Euse- 
bius (version of Hieronymus), who says that in 323 B.c.: “‘Agatho- 
cles Syracusis tyrannidem exercet.”’? Diodorus, on the other hand, 
states that Agathocles obtained control over Syracuse in 317 
B. c.3 It may be that in this case Hieronymus and Syncellus 
were mistaken, and that we have here one of the common cases 
where two numerals, such as CXIV.II and CXV.IIII, were con- 
fused. It is possible, however, that Hieronymus here indicates 
the date when Agathocles first obtained control of public affairs, 
even if but for a short time and with powers not clearly defined.4 

When driven out by Sosistratus, Agathocles went to Morgan- 
tium; but shortly afterward, with the consent of the Carthaginian 
leader Hamilcar, he succeeded in returning to Syracuse, and in 
being recognized as general by the new democratic government.’ 
Not even then, however, was he able to consider himself as abso- 
lute master, on account of the power of the optimates. To suc- 
ceed in having an army which would be trustworthy and ready 
to carry out any orders whatever, he concealed from the citizens his 
real designs and told them that he had been given to understand 
that the rebels had been assembling forces at Herbita, a city situ- 
ated in the central part of the island. He pretended to make an 

t Diod. xxi. 16. 5; cf. Schubert, of. cit., p: 33. 

2 Eus., ed. Schoene, II, p. 117. This date is not even discussed by Holm and 
Schubert. 

3 Diod. xix. 5. 

4 See Iust. xxii. 1: “Bis occupare imperium Syracusarum voluit, bis in exilium 


actus est.’’ For the meaning of these words see Schubert, op. cit., p. 44. 
5s About 317 B.C.; see Diod. xix. 5; Iust. xxii. 2. 


PRETENDED EXPEDITION OF AGATHOCLES. 161 


expedition against Herbita, but in reality assembled from Mor- 
gantium, and from other friendly or allied cities, the sold ers who 
at his command were to kill the citizens, either because they were 
rich, or because they were adverse to his absolute government. 

From that period on, Agathocles was really master of Syracuse, 
and, having no longer to render an account of his actions to any- 
one, he commenced to assail openly the neighboring cities, whether 
friendly or hostile, and at times even those which were relying on 
their a!liance with Carthage.’ 

The action of Agathocles in the case of the expedition against 
Herbita recalls vividly that which, either then or in the past, he 
had taken in regard to Tauromenium. If that city did not recog- 
nize his dominion as a result of the treaty of 314 B.C.,3 it at least 
fell into his hands together with Messana in 312.4 

‘That the assault on the fortress in the territory of Taurome- 
nium took place by sea is easily explained by an examination of the 
geographical and strategical position of Tauromenium itself. 
Moreover, other similar unforeseen marine assaults on the part of 
Agathocles are attested as having occurred against Messana and 
Mylae.s’ The reason for his concealing the fact that the attack 
was in reality directed against Tauromenium is given by Poly- 
aenus himself; i.e., because the inhabitants of Tauromenium 
were allies. When the Corinthian Timoleon, having overcome 
the obstacles placed in his way by the Carthaginians, succeeded 
in setting foot in Sicily, it was Andromachus, the father of the 
historian Timaeus, who received him at Tauromenium, which 
he had recently founded. With that place as a starting-point, 
Timoleon succeeded in freeing Syracuse from the tyrants. Accord- 
ing to Diodorus, or rather Timaeus, Andromachus aided the under- 
taking of Timoleon because he was well disposed toward Syracuse.° 

The good relations between the two cities evidently lasted for 
several decades, and the reason for this is to be sought in the 
origin of the inhabitants of Tauromenium. According to Dio- 

t Diod. xix. 9 f.; Polyaen. v. 3. 7; 8; Lust. xxii. 2. 4 Diod. xix. 102. 

2 Diod. xix. 9; 65 f.; Iust. xxii. 3. 5 Diod. xix. 65. 

3 Diod. xix. 72. _ © Diod. xvi. 68; 345 B.C. 


162 ANCIENT ITALY 


dorus,t Tauromenium, having been taken from the Siculi and 
made a colony of Syracuse by Dionysius I, received through 
Andromachus the ancient Naxians whom Dionysius I had driven 
from their native town.?,_ How was it possible, however, for Andro- 
machus, who had founded a city of the ancient Naxians, to favor 
Syracuse, of which city the Naxians had always been the fiercest 
of enemies? We are not surprised that Diodorus does not find it 
necessary to explain this contradiction. 

The earliest coins of Tauromenium, of about the time of 
Andromachus, have the Doric legends APXATETA® and TAYPO- 
MENITAN,’ and the official language in the inscriptions is also 
Doric.* Moreover, Andromachus was well disposed toward Syra- 
cuse, and his son, the historian Timaeus, was called a Syracusan 
by the Sicilian Diodorus.’ From these facts we should perhaps 
conclude, not only that the base of the population of Tauromenium 
was Doric, as has, of course, already been observed, but also that 
it had been founded by Syracusans who differed from the policy 
of the Dionysii. Andromachus founded, or rather reconstituted, 
Tauromenium in 358 B.C., at the commencement of the revolu- 
tion which was to put an end to the tyranny of the second Dionysius.° 
If this theory is correct, and Tauromenium was really an offshoot 
of Syracuse, we understand better why the Romans, in addition 
to handing over to Hiero II the possessions of Acrae, Netum, 
Helorus, Megara, and Leontini, all of which were near Syracuse, 
and had been conquered by her centuries before, should also have 
granted him Tauromenium, notwithstanding the fact that between 
it and the territory of Hiero were Catana and the Roman province, 
and that the strategic position of Tauromenium should have coun- 
seled the Romans not to allow it to fall into the hands of others.7 


t Diod. xiv. 96; cf. 59, 86; 396 B.C. 2 Diod. xvi. 7; 358 B.C. 

3 See Head, op. cit., p. 165. 

4E. g., Kaibel, Inscr. Gr. Sic. et It., No. 434: 6 Samos rdv Tavpouenrav . . . 

5 Diod. xvi. 16. 5. 

6 Holm (Gesch. Sic., II, p. 438) thinks Tauromenium was inhabited by a 
population of mixed Doric and Ionic elements (and among these also the Zan- 
claeans), and that the Doric dialect was in official use, because at the time of 
the founding of the city the influence of Syracuse in Sicily was preponderant. 

7 See Diod. xxiii. 4. 1; cf. Athen. v. 208 f. 


XV 
THE DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 


In describing the extent of Campania, and the peoples who 
inhabited it, Polybius first mentions the inhabitants of the cities 
on the coast, such as Sinuessa, Cumae, Dicaearchia, Naples, and 
Nucera, and those dwelling in the interior at Cales and Teanum, 
and then, before describing Capua, the most important city of 
the plain, says that the region lying to the east and south was 
occupied by the Aavvor cai Nodavoi.t 

Who these Daunians were has often been asked, but with no 
success. It has been supposed that the text of Polybius is corrupt, 
and Holstenius, among others, proposed to correct the word Aavvou 
to Kavéivor, while others, such as Schafer, have suggested the 
reading Kadarivo. Neither from a paleographical nor from a 
geographical standpoint is either of these two changes entirely 
satisfactory. Caudium did not belong to Campania, but to the 
region of the Hirpini in Samnium,? and the fact that it was situated 
beyond the mountains which surrounded Campania would seem 
to preclude its being considered in this connection, especially 
since Polybius, who was describing rather the geographical than 
the political characteristics of the country, alludes expressly to 
the numerous and continuous mountains which surround and 
isolate the Campanian plain. 

From a geographical standpoint the correction to Kadativos 
has greater probability, but it is paleographically incorrect. Upon 
close examination still other corrections suggest themselves, 
although no one of them seems convincing enough to warrant its 
acceptance. Thus, for example, instead of the words TPOC.... 

t Polyb. ii. or. 4 f. 

2Plin. N. H. iii. 11. 105; Liv. xxiii. 41. 13: Samnites Caudinos. Also Ptol. 
iii. 1. 58 places it in the country of the Samnites. There is nothing definite to be 
derived from Strab. v, p. 249 C.; vi, p. 283 C. 

3 Polyb. ii. gt. 8: 7d 5é mwXefov Sper weyddos wdvry Kal cuvexéor weprexerat, 

163 


164 - ANCIENT ITALY 


MECHMBPIAN AAVNIOI it might seem better to read TTPOC 
MECHMBPIAN ABEAAANOI, since the most ancient Abella was 
not only situated in Campania, but was near the city of Nola, as 
would be shown, were other proof lacking, by the famous cippus 
of Abella alone. It should be remembered that in his list Polybius 
records one after the other, cities which were situated near each 
other, or even close together, such as Cales and Teanum, Cumae 
and Dicaearchia, and Dicaearchia and Naples. 

It seems to me, however, that there is no need of changing the 
text. The mere fact that the Daunians whom Polybius mentions 
are not known to us offers no excuse for such a change. An exam- 
ination of the coins of Campania shows a series of cities which are 
not mentioned in the texts, and the location of which both numisma- 
tists and geographers have in vain endeavored to determine. 
About the middle of the fourth century there existed in the central 
part of the Campanian plain the cities of Alipha, Phistelia, Alliba, 
and Hyria. In the following century we find others, such as Irthne, 
which is also unknown. For certain of these coins probable and 
ingenious conjectures have been made, but in nearly all cases they 
are conjectures which may be accepted or refuted, according to the 
point of view taken by the critic. There are, for example, scholars 
who attribute certain of these coins to cities on the coast, while 
still others have thought to have plausible reasons for assigning 
the same coins to regions which are situated beyond the bounds of 
Campania. Thus certain numismatists, such as Head, have 
located Alipha and Phistelia near Cumae, while others more recently 
have identified them with Allifae and other regions of Samnium.* 
In like manner ancient texts speak of Samnite or Campanian 
cities of which we find no trace in the coins or authors of the 
second century of the Republic. During the wars of the fourth 
and third centuries B.C., certain cities disappeared. Aurunca, 
of which city we have coins dating from the fourth century, is 
said to have been destroyed in 337 by the Sidicini.? Of Vescia, too, 

t Head, Hist. num., pp. 26, 35; cf. Dressel apud A. Sambon, Les monnaies 
antiques de l’Italie (Paris, 1904), pp. 320, 329. 
2 Liv. viii. 15. 2. Mommsen in the CIL, X, p. 465 (whom I follow in my 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA _165 


we have no information, and it is quite possible that certain of the 
names mentioned by Diodorus for the period of the Samnite wars 
do not imply a corrupt text, but recall localities which during that 
struggle either entirely disappeared, or else became insignificant 
villages, unworthy of being included in works on political and 
administrative geography.' 

It may be objected in the present instance that Polybius wrote 
after these wars were ended, and alludes, not to obscure and un- 
known cities, but to the most important localities of Campania. 
He mentions the inhabitants of Suessa and Cumae, of Dicae- 
archia and Naples, and also the Daunii, Nolani and Nucerini. 
Under the name of Tav Novxepivey éOvos he includes a series of 
peoples who recognized Nucera as their metropolis. In this manner 
Polybius avoids mentioning the various seats of the Sarrastes, the 
localities on the Sorrentine peninsula, and Pompeii itself.2 He 
alludes to Capua by itself, and either does not take occasion or 
had no intention to refer to Casilinum, Volturnum, Atella, and 
Suessula. He speaks of Naples, but not of the localities which 
recognized the hegemony, or even the dominion, of that city. It 
may well be that under the name of Daunians he alludes to a 
people dwelling on the borders of, or not far distant from, the 
territory of Nola, in the southeastern portion of Campania, in the 
neighborhood of the buttresses of the Apennines which bound 
the Campanian plain in that direction. 

This conclusion would seem to be strengthened by the fact that 
the mention of the Daunians is not, so to to speak, a dmra& Neyd- 
Hevov of Campania, but occurs elsewhere as well. Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus, in speaking of the important expedition which 
in 524 B. C., was made against Cumae by the Etruscans, says that 
to these were united "OufSpixol te nai Aavwo, Kal cvxvoit Tov 
aAXwv BapSapwv.3 For several decades numerous visible traces 


Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 246) believes that Aurunca is the same as Suessa Aurunca. 
See, however, the observations of Garrucci, Monete dell’ Italia ant., p. 78, in regard 
to the ruins of Croce di Rocca Monfina. 

1 See the discussion of this in my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 398 ff. 

2 Concerning the €@vos r@v Novxeplywy I accept the observations of Beloch, 
Campanien, p. 240. 

3 Dion. Hal. vii. 3. 


166 ANCIENT ITALY 


of these Etruscans remained in Campania, and according to Poly- 
bius and Strabo they founded there twelve cities.t Moreover, 
Herculaneum and Pompeii fell into their hands,? and it was not 
until about 424 B.C., or the years immediately following, that, 
according to the chronology of Livy, they were forced by the Sam- 
nites to give up their possession of Capua and Cumae.3 Even of 
their allies some traces were left, because, as we learn from Pliny, 
the Umbrians were among the peoples that ruled over Campania. 
These are mentioned after the Greeks and together with the Etrus- 
cans, but before the Campanians.4 —The Umbrians are also recorded 
by Strabo when he enumerates the various peoples that con- 
quered Campania.‘ 

It is quite possible that the memory of these Umbrians endured 
in the name of Nuceria Alfaterna, since Nuceria was also the name 
of a city situated in the center of Umbria; nor is such an ethnical 
attribution opposed by the fact that a historian of the fourth century 
spoke of Noucria or Nuceria as a Tyrrhenian or Etruscan city.® 
We know from Strabo and Pliny that the Etruscans pushed as 
far as the modern Salerno and the plain of Picentum, which is 
bounded by the Sele and traversed by the stream which is still 
termed Tusciano.? Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the 


t Polyb. ii. 17; Strab. v, p. 242 C. 2 Strab. v, p. 247 C. 
3 Liv. iv. 37. 44; cf. Diod. xii. 31. 76; for 438 and 421 B.C. 
4Plin. N. H. iii. 60. 


5 I regard as certain the emendation of Beloch to Strab. v, p. 242 C., where in 
place of “Ockwy 7d vos, which is meaningless, he reads OpuSpixar. 

6 Philist. apud Steph. Byz., s. v. Nouxpia. 

7 In addition to the remarks in my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 522, it may be 
note@ that a- possible allusion to the Etruscan domination in the region near the 
Silarus is preserved in the mention of the colony of Cosa, near Paestum (see Liv. 
xxvii. ro. 8; cf. Vell. i. 14. 7), which, according to certain texts of Velleius, is 
perhaps mentioned as being in a region not very far distant from Herculaneum and 
Pompeii (ii. 16). It seems to me probable that the colony of Cosa, which was 
founded at the same time as Paestum, instead of being in the immediate neighbor- 
hood of Pompeii, as certain critics have thought, was located in the region above 
Paestum, not far from the Sele and on the edge of the wood of Persano, where there 
still exists a locality termed /a Cosa. It is by no means unusual to find two Roman 
colonies in close juxtaposition and united for strategic purposes. A close parallel 
exists in the case of Sinuessa and Minturnae, which were founded in 295 B. C., 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 167 


Umbrians, Daunians, and other barbarians figure as allies of the 
Etruscans. 

If, however, the statement of Dionysius is confirmed as far as 
the Etruscans and Umbrians are concerned, why should we doubt 
it in the case of the Daunians and other barbarian peoples? It 
is hardly possible that the Daunians who came to Campania with 
the Etruscans and Umbrians were the imhabitants of Daunia, the 
modern Capitanata where Foggia is situated. They were rather, 
as everything leads us to believe, a branch of this people. From 
ancient writers we learn that the Daunians were of the important 
Iapygian stock which gave its name to the whole of Apulia, and 
which in the fourth century still occupied a territory extending as 
far as Mount Orion or Garganus and the borders of Samnium. 
From this it is clear why the Iapygian-Daunians united them- 
selves with the Umbrians. As we learn from the Tabulae I guvinae, 
there were in the direction of the Adriatic coast several neighboring 
tribes of Iapygian descent which were hostile to the Umbrians.* 

It does not seem possible to understand the problem of the 
origin of the Daunians without taking into consideration the pas- 
sages in Vergil in which the Rutulians of Ardea are termed Daunii, 
and their king, Turnus, is called Daunius, because he was the son 
of Daunus. If in this passage Vergil reproduces his sources with 
his customary faithfulness, it follows that the Daunians also occu- 
pied some portion of the earliest Latium, and we understand better 
the fact that they are found with the Etruscans, when that people, 
after invading and conquering Latium about the second half of the 
sixth century, pushed as far as the Campanian plain, which they 
and also in the case of Placentia and Cremona, both of which date from 218 
B. C. 

As I stated in an oral contribution at the meeting of the Accad. di Arch. Napol., 
April 5, 1901, I would attribute to the Cosa near Paestum the coins of the Cam- 
panian type with the legend CO4ANO, which Garrucci (p. 74) and Dressel 
(Beschreibung der antiken Miinzen [Berlin, 1894], III, 1, p. 34) attribute to Cosa 
Volcientium, and which Head (op. cit., p. 25) is disposed to assign to Compsa in 


Samnium. The name of the Cosa near the Silarus, and not far from Lucanian 
Volceium, would naturally seem to suggest the Etruscan Cosa Volcentium. 


1 Tab. Iguv. vi. 6. 54f.; vii. a. 12. 47 f.; cf. the Dolates cognomine Sallentini 
int Phin wNi.cE, ii. .1T 2: 


168 ANCIENT ITALY 


held until the invasion of the Samnite Campanians in the fifth 
century.!. Nothing opposes the conclusion that the lapygian 
Daunians established themselves in Campania in the same manner 
as did their allies, and the mention of the Aavwoz in Polybius 
causes one to believe that they occupied some portion of that fertile 
region. 

The above observations are confirmed by another passage 
which has not been generally understood, and which, so far as I 
know, has never been made use of in this connection, although it 
makes mention of the Daunians in a region which must have be- 
longed to Campania. This passage is found in the collection of 
amorous narrations which was dedicated to Cornelius Gallus by 
Parthenius, the teacher of Vergil. One-of these tales deals with 
the story of a certain Calchus, king of the Daunians, who became 
enamored of Circe and offered her his realm. After the arrival 
of Ulysses, however, he was transformed by her enchantments 
into a swine. The Daunians, alarmed at the nonappearance of 
their king, set out to find him, and betook themselves to Circe, 
who promised to restore him on the condition that he never return 
to her island.? 

The scholars who have examined this account have generally 
seen in it an allusion to a local hero of Daunia, the modern Capita- 
nata. And since the seer Calchas was honored in that region on 
Mount Garganus, and since Pliny states that the Lucanians were 
subdued by him, they have come to the conclusion that the local 
hero Calchus was transformed by the Greeks into the Greek 
Calchas. This conclusion, however, is entirely false and arbitrary. 

t For Daunus, the father of Turnus, and for the Rutulians termed Daunians, 
see Verg. viii. 146; x. 616; xii. 723. See, however, the myth of Turnus descended 
from Danae (vii. 372, and cf. Serv. ad loc.), and cf. Stoll s. v. “Danae” in Roscher. 
The difference between the two myths is naturally explained as an adaptation of a 
tradition of Italic origin to Greek legends. The Latin Messapus (Verg. vii. 691; 
viii. 6; ix. 27, 124, 523; X. 354) is possibly a localization of the eponymous Sallen- 
tinus (see Serv. ad Aen. vii. 691), or else may represent the transformation to 
Messapus of some Japygio-Daunian hero of Latium. 

2 Parth. 12. 


3See Stoll and Immisch, s. v. “‘Kalchas” in Roscher, II, 1, col. 923. They 
are followed by Beloch in Hermes XXTX (1894), p. 606. 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 169 


The hero Calchas who was honored on Mount Garganus, and 
who conquered the Leucanians or Lucanians of Leuceria or 
Lucera, was a Greek hero who had originally nothing to do with 
the Daunians of the Capitanata. This is shown by the fact that 
his cult was there united with that of Podalirius, whose tomb was 
also shown at the foot of the same mountain. According to certain 
traditions, Calchas and Podalirius returned on foot from Troy. 
Still other versions state that this was accomplished by Calchas in 
company with Mopsus.t With this is possibly connected the 
mention of the Mopsians in the region of the upper Ofanto, the 
river which empties into Daunian territory. These myths of 
Argive origin, and localized especially in Pamphylia, Cilicia, and 
Rhodian Phaselis, are connected with the existence near Mount 
Garganus of the colony of Elpie or Salapia, founded by Coans of 
Argive-Rhodian origin.? Calchus is therefore a hero of Italian 
Daunia. He has nothing in common with the Greek Calchas, 
and his seat could not have been in eastern Daunia or Capitanata. 

It is difficult to see just what could have suggested such relations 
between Circe and Daunia, although the way in which she became 
connected with the Latins and Marsians is evident. From the 
fifth century at least, Rome and Latium had been closely connected 
with Circeli, and it was natural that the cult of the eponymous 
goddess of that city should have assumed a place among their 
myths. The Latin divinity Picus was made the husband of 
Circe, and Latinus himself her son. In like manner the Mamilii 
of Tusculum thought themselves descended from Ulysses and the 
famous enchantress.3 The fact that the Marsians believed them- 
selves descendants of a son of Circe is explained by the custom, 

See my statements concerning the Greek colonies of the Adriatic in my 


Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 574 ff.; cf. the commentary of E. Ciaceri on 
the Alexandra of Lycophron (Catania, 1901), pp. 296 ff. 


2 For Mopsus see the article of Hofer in Roscher, II, 2, cols. 3007 ff., and 
Ciaceri, op. cit., p. 195 for vs. 439. With the cult of Mopsus seems to me to be 
connected the name of the Mopsii, a political division of the Hirpinan Compsa 
beside the upper Ofanto (Liv. xxxiii. 1). 

3 Pseud.-Scymn., vs. 228; Liv. i. 49; Verg. vii. 190; cf. Steph. Byz., s. vv.” Apdea, 
“Avreva, Ipalvecros. 


170 ANCIENT ITALY 


which still prevails among the natives of the province of Abruzzo 
and the central Apennine region, of passing through the valley of 
the Liris and over the pass of Fabrateria (Ceccano) to spend the 
winter in the Pomptine marshes and at Terracina.* 

On the other hand, neither political nor commercial relations 
united the island of Circe to the distant Daunia, which was situated 
on another sea, and was separated from Circeii by a range of lofty 
mountains. In all probability the legend refers, not to a hero of 
the Capitanata who offers to Circe his realm, but to the king of some 
region in the neighborhood of the island of the enchantress. And 
since we know from Dionysius that the Daunian barbarians 
attacked Campania with the Etruscans, and since Polybius men- 
tions the presence of Daunia in that region, it seems probable that 
the myth related by Parthenius embraces a later allusion to this 
people. 

It now remains to determine, if possible, the exact location of the 
Daunians as compared with that of the neighboring Nolans. Were 
they situated to the north or to the south of Nola, and on the plain 
or on the slopes of the adjacent mountains inhabited by the Hir- 
pini? And what cities were under their control? Polybius offers 
no further assistance in determining their location. In enumerat- 
ing the cities of northern Campania he first speaks of Cales, which 
is situated to the south of Teanum, the city which is next men- 
tioned. This shows that from his statement it is impossible to 
decide whether the Daunians were situated more to the south or 
to the east of the Nolans. Nor is there any aid to be derived 
from the other literary or monumental sources, since there is 
nowhere mention of the fines of the Hyrienses, who, as we shall 
see, were probably subject to the Daunians. This is brought 
out by Fiorelli in one of his plates illustrating the results obtained 
by the Latin gromatics.? 


£ Pin IV. ovale 26s xxv tts .Gelly No-As xvi. ye; 

2 See Lachmann, Gromatici veteres, Plate 24, Fig. 197 a, ad Hyg. De limit. 
constit., I, p. 204. On this plate, near an oppidum atellae and a via consularis we 
read fines hirrensium, and the same words are repeated a short distance away. 
This led Fiorelli (Annali numismatict, I, 33, apud Garrucci, Mon. dell’ Italia antica, 
p- 92) to place the above-mentioned Hyrienses in Campania (cf also A. Sambon 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 171 


Since there is little assistance to be derived from the texts, 
and since there are no inscriptions bearing on the question, we 
must have recourse to the coins and to topography, which throw 
a light upon the subject which, though faint, is not to be despised. 
An examination of the names found in eastern Daunia shows that 
certain of them have an Osco-Italian character similar to those 
of Campania. This is easily explained when one considers the 
presence on the Adriatic coast also of the early Ausonian Oscans. 
Even at the time of Pseudo-Scylax the Opicians were found in 
that region, and it was there that the successive invasions of the 
Piceni and the other peoples of Italico-Samnite descent occurred.? 
As a result of such Italic influence we find the name ‘‘Teanum” 
or “Teate” both in Campania and in Capitanata. If, on the 
other hand, we seek traces in Campania of the names of the Iapy- 
gian stock which occupied eastern Daunia, we come across the 
name of the Urietes, the inhabitants of Hyria or Uria, which calls 
to mind the Uria on the slopes of Mount Garganus, a mountain 
which in the fourth century B. C., was itself called Orion. 

It has already been noticed that the name of Hyria or Uria is 
characteristic of the Iapygian race, and had less connection with 
that of the Daunians in question.? It is true that the same name 
is found in certain regions of Greece and Asia Minor,’ but it occurs 
Les monnaies antiques del Italie, I, p. 203). This identification, however, is erro- 
neous. Fiorelli supposes that the colonia Augusta which was separated from the 
oppidum atellae by the via consularis was Capua, but between the two localities is a 
mons which certainly does not exist in the center of the Campanian plain. More- 
over, where we should expect to find Vesuvius there are recorded a mons sacer and 
a rivus tailo which are unknown in that region. The Hirrenses are given the addi- 
tional title of [ttilenates, and in the neighborhood we find a flumen Bodua, a river 
Habita Maior, a mons Carvor Vettacensium, the fines Venetiatensium, the locality 
Machartana, etc. Evidently the drawing does not refer to Campania, but to some 
country which it is impossible to locate. See A. Schulten, ‘‘Rémische Flurkarten,”’ 
Hermes, XXXIII (1898), pp. 557 ff. 

t For the ’Omixol of Pseudo-Scylax see above, chap. i. 


2 See Beloch, Campanien, p. 410, who wrongly, as it seems to me, holds that 
the Iapygians arrived by sea. The account of Dionysius of Halicarnassus makes 
it certain that the Daunians arrived by land from the north, together with the 
Umbrians and other barbarians united with the Etruscans. 

3‘Ypla is the name of a city in Boeotia; it was given to the island of Paros 


172 ANCIENT ITALY 


with especial frequency in the regions occupied by the Iapygian 
race. We find a Hyria recorded by Herodotus on the Sallentine 
peninsula, and the same name occurs on the Messapian coast at 
Veretum, and in the center of that region at Orra or Uria. It is, 
above all, natural that the name should have been preserved in the 
neighborhood of Mount Garganus, which on account of its isolated 
position long preserved intact its original ethnical characteristics, 
and in that region the name of the Lago di Varano still records 
the existence of the adjacent Uria or Hyria, and of the people of 
the Hirini.* 

It cannot be affirmed with absolute certainty that the Uria of 
Campania was a Daunian city, but there is some probability in 
favor of this hypothesis. Among the coins of Campania is a 
series bearing the legends Hyrietes, Hyrianos, and Urina. As 
everyone who has studied the history of ancient Campania knows, 
these coins have given rise to a great deal of discussion and to the 
formulation of numerous contradictory theories; but the most 
competent authorities seem agreed in attributing them to some city 
in the neighborhood of Nola, if not to the mint of Nola itself.? 


and to a small island near Naxos. It is the name of a city in Cilicia (see the pas- 
sages quoted in Pape-Benserer, Eigennamen, s. v. Ovpla), and also of a lake in 
Aetolia (Strab. x, p. 459 C.). Moreover, the name ‘fpla has often (as, for example, 
by K. O. Miiller) been brought into relation with that of the hero Orion, who was 
also localized at Messana, and with that of Zeus Urius. See the material given by 
O. Axt, Die Griindungsage von Zancle (Messina [Grimma], 1831), pp. 55 ff. 

1 The 'Qplwvos 8pos of Iapygia, mentioned by Pseudo-Scylax, 14 ff., as has 
often been noted, is the same as Mount Garganus, near which was located the 
O¥peov of Strabo (vi, p. 284 C.), or the Uria of Pliny (iii, 103; also termed Jrini, 
ibid. 105), or Hyrium of Ptolemy (iii. 1. 14). Cf. Dion. Perieg., vs. 379; the coins 
with the legend YPIATINQN in Head, of. cit., p. 39; the Sinus Urias of Pomp. 
Mela ii. 66; and the modern name of Lago di Varano. 

As was already noticed by Strabo, the ‘Ypla of Herodot. vii. 170 corresponded 
to the Ovpla situated between Brindisi and Tarentum (today Oria), or to Ovpyréy 
(Strab. vi, p. 282 C.), the Veretum of the Romans (today S. Maria di Vereto). I 
think I have shown in my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 550 ff., that the Hyria 
of Herodotus is the same as Veretum, and that it is also to be connected with the 
Urites of Liv. xlii. 48. 7, to whom should be attributed the coins with the legend 
ORRA which are generally assigned to the Messapian Uria between Tarentum 
and Brindisi (cf. Head, op. cit., p. 43). The forms Odpyréy and ‘pla are also 
mixed in Ptolemy (iii. 1. 68), who uses the first form for the Mediterranean Uria. 

2 For the coins of the Campanian Hyria see the thoroughgoing observations of 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 173 


For my own part, I am disposed to attach but little weight to the 
place where the coins were found, or to the resemblance of their 
types to those of Nola, since for Nola, and for Hyria or Uria, Phis- 
telia and Alipha as well, there may easily have existed some common 
center for the derivation of such objects—a center determined by 
both political and commercial convenience, and by the influence 
of artists from Naples. A fact which seems to me of much greater 
importance is that the coins of Hyria, which, in the same manner as 
those of the other cities just mentioned and various other Campa- 
nian localities, show by the types on one side that Naples was the 
city whence they were derived, bear on the other side an allusion 
to the cult of Argive Juno. 

So far as I know, this feature has been overlooked by numis- 
matists, although it clearly indicates the existence of relations 
with the valley of the Silarus, or Sele, at the mouth of which was 
a well-known temple of Argive Juno, who figures also on the coins 
of Posidonia (Paestum). An examination of the coins makes 
it evident that the type was derived from the statue of the goddess 
which was worshiped at Argos.‘ The same type also occurs on 
the coins of Fenser, a city which was situated near Vesuvius, as 
is shown by the representation of Bellerophon and the Chimaera 
displayed on the reverse of its coins. Jam disposed to admit, with 
Imhoof-Blumer, that the Latin name corresponding to Fenser is 
Veseris, or that of Vesuvius, although the battle of 340 B.c., in 
which the Latins were defeated, did not occur at the foot of Mount 
Vesuvius, as is held by Imhoof-Blumer and other scholars who 
Imhoof-Blumer, “Zur Miinzkunde Grossgriechenlands, Siciliens, Kretas, etc.,’ 
Numismatische Zeitschrijt, Vienna, 1887, pp. 206 ff.; cf. Sambon, Les monnaies 
antiques de I’Italie, I, pp. 293 ff. From two coins in the museum of Berlin 


(Nos. 5, 6=Plate IV, 49, 49 a) Dressel, Beschreibung der antiken Miinzen, III, 1, 
p- 98, derives ‘das Hyria und Nola eine gemeinsame Pragestatte hatten.” 


t For this temple see Strab. vi, p. 252 C.; Plin. N. H. iii. 71. For the type 
in Argos see Head, op. cit., p. 367; at Posidonia (Paestum), Garrucci, Plate 121, 
Fig. 4. It also occurs on the coins of Himera, on the Punic coinage of Fiz (Pa- 
lermo; cf. Holm, Geschichte Siciliens, III, Plate VI, Fig. 9; Plate VIII, Fig. 22), 
and among the types of Croton and Pandosia (Head, pp. 82, 90). In Campania it 
also appears on the coins of Fistelia (Sambon, I, Plate IV). For Elis see the 
Catalogue of the British Museum, “Peloponnesus,” Plate XII, Figs. 11-18. 


174 ANCIENT ITALY 


follow an erroneous account in Livy, but near the volcano of 
Rocca Monfina, above Suessa Aurunca, as I have elsewhere shown. 
The name “‘Veseris” seems to have indicated a burning mountain, 
just as possibly did that of Aesernia, a city which rendered especial 
honors to Vulcan.? 

By clever numismatical observations Imhoof-Blumer has shown 
that the coins of Fenser must have been struck somewhere in the 
neighborhood of Urina, a city which on other numismatical evi- 
dence he considers to have been located not far from Nola. Follow- 
ing Millingen, he thinks that Fenser occupied the site of the 
modern village of Pernosano, between Nola and Lauro. It seems 
to me, however, that this locality is too far from Vesuvius. For 
my own part I would locate Fenser on the slopes of that mountain, 
somewhere in the neighborhood of Pompeii. It is certain that 
Pompeii was conquered by the Etruscans, and, thanks to the 
diligence of Mau, traces of Etruscan colonization have been dis- 
covered in that city, which I hold to be more recent than the Greek 
temple dating from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the 
fifth century, and of which remains are still clearly visible.? 

Hyria or Urina I would locate not far from Fenser, in the 
valley of the Sarno, in the territory of Nucera; and although we 
have not enough evidence to show that it certainly belonged to the 
Daunians, we have at least sufficient data to prove that is was 
situated in the region which longer than any other portion of 
Campania preserved traces of the invading peoples before the 
Sabine conquest, and especially of the Umbrians who were united 
. with the Daunians and Etruscans in the expedition of 524 B. c. 

Strabo, in speaking of Acerrae, says that its name recalls that of 
the Acerrae near Cremona.? It is not certain whether we should 
hold, with Beloch, that the Acerraeans were of Etruscan origin,4 
or whether they should be considered a portion of the cvyxvot 

t Imhoof-Blumer, op. cit., pp. 217 ff. Cf. the observations on Veseris in my 
Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 259. 

2 See Plate V in this volume for a column from this temple. Cf. also Mau, in 
Rém. Mitth. XVII (1902), pp. 305 ff.; XIX (1904), pp. 124 ff.; XX (1905), 


pp. 193 ff. 
3 Strab. v, p. 247 C. 4 Beloch, Campanien, p. 382. 


PLATE V 





ETRUSCAN COLUMN AT POMPEII 


ee 
io 
ae 
i> 

-_ 


i 


= 
7 


= _ 
: 7 


: 
ra 


oi 





me 
—_ 


7 


oe 


ee ee 
aay) 

oO 
4 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 175 


tav adddxwv BapSdpwv who came with the Etruscans about 524 
B.c. It has hitherto escaped observation that Acerrae was also 
the ancient name of a city of the Umbrians, which had already 
been destroyed, at the time of Pliny and it is a noteworthy fact 
that it belonged to the people known by the name of Sarranates— 
a name which very closely resembles that of the Sarrasti of the 
valley of the Sarno.* That this coincidence was by no means 
fortuitous is shown by the statement of Strabo to the effect that 
the Acerraeans, instead of employing the neighboring port of 
Naples for the loading and unloading of their produce, preferred 
to journey twice the distance to the port of Pompeii rapa 7@ Lape, 
which they used in common with the inhabitants of Nola and Nu- 
cera.?_ As has also been brought out by Nissen, this fact alludes 
clearly to political relations which existed before the Roman era,3 
and although it is not necessary to come to the same conclusion as 
does Nissen, that the Acerraeans were one of the peoples which 
founded Pompeii, it is evident that between the inhabitants of 
Acerrae and those of the valley of the Sarno there existed at an 
early period ethnical and political relations which were strength- 
ened by material interests. 

The statements of ancient writers concerning the origin of the 
inhabitants of Nuceria and of the peoples of the valley of the Sarno 
lead to the same conclusions. According to Conon, as quoted by 
the commentator on Vergil who is known by the name of Servius, 
the Pelasgians founded Nuceria and many other towns, and were 
the earliest of the so-called Sarrastes who inhabited the valley of 
the Sarno. As we have already stated, Nuceria was a purely 
Umbrian name; but, on the other hand, it is not possible to harmo- 
nize these statements with the passage in Strabo which affirms 
that Pompeii and the fortress of Herculaneum were occupied, 
first by the Oscans, then by the Etruscans and Pelasgians, and 
lastly by the Samnites. In the well-known passage in which Strabo 

t Plin. N. H. iii. 114: “in hoc situ interiere . . . . et Sarranates cum oppidis 
Acerris quae Vafriae cognominabantur.” 

2'Strab. v,,p. 247°C: 3 Nissen, Pomp. Studien, p. 581. 

4 Con. apud Serv. ad Aen. vii. 738. 


176 ANCIENT ITALY 


discusses the origin of Caere, and afterward that of the Etruscans, 
as a result of the theory that the Pelasgians emigrated from Thessaly 
to Tyrrhenia at a very early period, he mentions them together 
with the Etruscans.t This agrees perfectly with another state- 


ment, also found in Strabo, according to which the Umbrians 
were of Thessalian origin.? This theory was derived from fifth- 
century writers, such as Hellanicus, and was also repeated by the 
source of Trogus Pompeius.3 From this it is evident that Strabo, 
in speaking of the occupation of Pompeii and Herculaneum by the 
Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians, alludes to the Etruscans and Umbrians 
who, together with the Daunians and other barbarians, invaded 
Campania about 524 B. c. It is possible that a trace of this inva- 
sion is preserved in the coins with types in imitation of the Neapoli- 
tan coinage, and bearing the legend IDN@F, of which examples 
have been found in various parts of Campania, and even in the 
Oscan tombs of Pompeii.* 

From this it would seem that in the valley of the Sarno and 
near the territory of Nuceria there long remained traces of peoples 
which were less ancient than the Oscans, but which nevertheless 
preceded the Samnites in the conquest of Campania. The rela- 
tion in which these early inhabitants stood to the Nucerians and 
their allies may be at least partially determined from an examina- 
tion of the coinage of Nuceria and the neighboring cities. From 
the coins of Campania in general it is clear that certain cities, such 
as Hyria, Nola, Fenser, Phistelia, and Alipha, were especially 
prosperous. ‘They had been influenced to a greater or less degree 

1 Strab. v, pp. 221 f.; cf. p. 225 C., where he speaks of Regis Villa and the 
Pelasgian Mallus, and x, p. 443 C., referring to Thessaly. In this last passage 
Strabo refers to Hieronymus of Cardia; in the passage treating of Caere he declares 
that he follows the generally accepted opinion (duodoyotvres mdvres oxeddv TL). 


Also in his discussion of Pompeii and Herculaneum, Strabo naturally does not give 
his own opinions, but those of his sources. 

a Strab. v, p. 213 C. 3 Hellan. apud Dion. Hal. i. 28; Iust. xx. 1. 1. 

4 Dressel, Beschr. d. ant. Minden, III, 1, pp. 162 ff.; Sambon, op. cit., I, 
pp- 337 ff. It may be noted, in passing, that the name “ Phistelia”’ or “‘ Fisteluis” 
(see Sambon, op. cit., I, pp. 331 ff.) recalls not only the Samnite Phistlica near 
Saticula (Liv. ix. 21) but also the Umbrian name of the Plestini (Plin. N. H. 
iii. 114). 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 177 


by the Greek element in Naples, and maintained commercial 
relations with that city. We are told that both Nola and the 
neighboring Abella were held to be Chalcidian colonies,’ but the 
exclusively Greek legends on the coins of Nola, together with the 
pottery which has been found there, show that it had at least been 
greatly influenced and modified by the Greeks of Naples. More- 
over, the good relations which existed between Nola and Naples 
are brought out by the story of the capture of Nola by the 
Romans.’ 

On the other hand, the fact that the coins of Uria and Fistelia 
bear legends which are at times Greek and at times Oscan, proves 
that in these cities the native element was more numerous and 
more capable of resistance. In the case of Alipha and of Fenser 
the same thing is true to an even greater degree. The coinage of 
Alipha, Hyria, Fistelia, and Fenser endured only about a hundred 
years (from the fifth to the fourth century), on a par with the 
Campanian coins with Greek legends. The time of its disappear- 
ance corresponds to the appearance of the coins of Nuceria in 
southern Campania, of those of Atella and Calatia in the central 
portion, and of Cales and Suessa Aurunca in the north. The 
coinage of the two last-mentioned cities was the result of Roman 
conquest; that of Calatia and Abella proves the spreading of the 
Sabine Campanian element; the coins of Nuceria Alfaterna 
indicate the strengthening of the Samnite confederation at the 
expense of the neighboring peoples. From the coins, and from 
passages in the ancient authors, we learn that to great ethnical 
and political changes often corresponded changes in the names of 
cities. The Tarentines gave the name of Heraclea to the city 
which took the place of Siris, and Dionysius II of Syracuse entitled 
Chalcidian Regium PHoebea. In Campania also the same 
phenomenon frequently occurred. As a result of the hellenizing 
influence the native Moera changed its name to Abella;3_ the con- 
quest of Campania brought it about that the Etruscan Voltumum 
was called Capua; and as a result of the Roman conquest the 

2 Tust.-xxic82 133. cf. oils Ital? x26. 2 Liv. viii. 23. 25 f. 

3 Serv. ad Aen. vii. 740 


178 ANCIENT ITALY 


name of Aurunca took the place of that of Suessa, and Dicaearchia 
was termed Puteoli. 

It is-also probable that southern Campania was affected in 
much the same way. The very name of Nola, the ‘“ New”’ pre- 
supposes an earlier city with another name. Noucria is termed a 
Tyrrhenian city by Philistus, and coined money with the inscrip- 
tion Nuvkrinum Alafaternum, which reminds one of the Oscan 
Aljaterni (the Albii, or ‘‘ White” ?), who also appear in Latium, 
in the region of the Hernici, and in the Sabine territory." It is 
even possible that the Samnite gens of the Aljaterni may have 
seized the city of the Umbrians and of the Tyrrhenian Pelasgians of 
Noucria.?._ In the same way the gens of the Pompeii (or of the 
Quinctili) may possibly have gained possession of the region 
where the city arose, the Greek and Etruscan ruins of which bear 
witness to the fact that it had been colonized at various periods 
even before the time of the Samnites. 

Future excavations may enable us to decide whether Pompeii 
arose on the site which had formerly been occupied by the Etruscan 
Fenser or by the obscure Irnthe, and whether the ruins of Varano, 
or of the Campanian Stabiae, still preserve traces of the still 
older Hyria or Uria of the Daunians. The question of the 
Etruscan origin of Pompeii I shall defer till another occasion, 
but in the meantime, from the above observations on the Daunians 
and Umbrians, it is at least possible to conclude that the traces of 
these peoples endured more persistently in the valley of the Sarno 
than in the northern and central portions of Campania. Greek 
writers as early as the fourth century distinguished the region of this 
valley from the other territory of the Campanians, and attributed 
it rather to the Samnites dwelling adjacent to the Lucanians.4 

The successive influence of the Greeks and of the Sabine 
Campanians absorbed the Etruscan element, of which, however, 

t Plin. N. H. iii. 63. 108. 


2 For an analogous reason the Nucerini of Umbria are termed Camellani. 

3 Varano, as we have seen, is a modern name found near Mount Garganus, 
which corresponds to the ancient Hyrianus, near the ancient Hyria. 

4 Pseud.-Scyl., §11; cf. Pseud.-Scymn., vss. 244 ff. Also in Liv. viii. 23 fie. 
the inhabitants of Nola are distinguished from the Samnites. 


DAUNIANS AND UMBRIANS OF CAMPANIA 179 


noteworthy traces remained in the Sabine alphabet, which is 
commonly termed Oscan. The Etruscan element, and also that 
introduced by the Daunians and Umbrians, became more and 
more faint, and after the fourth century, when Rome forced the 
Campanians to ally themselves with her and seized upon Greek 
Naples, it was probably no longer recognizable. That traces of 
the Daunians and Umbrians, who invaded Campania together 
with the Etruscans, remained longer evident in the southern por- 
tion of that region, and in the valley of the Sarno, is probably due 
to the fact that the frequent successions of peoples had less direct 
influence on southern Campania, and also to the fact that the im- 
portance of Magna Graecia, and of the indigenous peoples which 
succeeded the Greeks, was rapidly declining. And, this being so, 
we find an explanation for the fact that, notwithstanding the later 
Samnite occupation, Polybius could still speak of the Daunians 
as one of the principal peoples of Campania. 

It may also be that the inferior development of this portion of 
Campania from the standpoint of civic organization bears some 
relation to the fact that, while in northern and central Campania, 
Polybius mentions the cities of Sinuessa, Cumae, Dicaearchia, 
Naples, and Capua, and the inhabitants of Cales and Teanum, 
when he discusses the southern portion he mentions only the 
inhabitants of Nuceria and Nola, and the Daunians. Even today, 
whoever traverses the two great sections of the Campanian plain 
which are separated by Mount Vesuvius cannot fail to notice the 
inferior civic and social development of the villages situated in 
the valley of the Sarno, as compared with the cities to the north of 
Vesuvius or near the sea. A closer examination, such as I have 
several times had occasion to make, will result in the conviction 
that in the valley of the Sarno there still exists a dense population 
which anthropologically seems to differ greatly from the surround- 
ing peoples, and which in many ways reminds one either of the 
ancient indigenous tribes anterior to the later Sabine invasions, 
or of some people entirely different from the Campanians and 
Romans, of whose presence numerous traces still remain among 
the inhabitants of the other regions of Campania. 





Fic. 10.—Coin of Fenser. 


XVI* 
CONCERNING THE EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 
I 


Ischia was the earliest Greek factory which was located on the 
shores facing Campania, and, if we follow tradition closely, was 
the earliest of the factories which the Greeks founded in all of Italy. 
This is shown by the fact that Cumae was held to be the earliest of 
the Greek colonies in Sicily and Italy,t and that the Euboeans, 
who founded it, are said, according to a tradition repeated by 
Livy,? to have halted first on Ischia and the small neighboring 
islands, whence only after the lapse of some time they dared to 
establish themselves on the mainland at Cumae. 

This statement of Livy’s deserves credence, both because it 
entirely corresponds to the character of the earliest Greek colonists, 
who, like the Phoenicians, first selected the promontories and 
small islands, where it was easier to resist unforeseen and hostile 
attacks of the natives;3 and also because the accounts of Livy, 
even though at times erroneous, in the case of the history of Naples 
are generally worthy of attention, and seem either directly or 
indirectly to be derived from some fairly well-informed local 
writer.4 


t Strab. v, p. 243 C. 


2 Liv. viii. 22. 5: ‘‘Cumani Chalcide Euboica originem trahunt. Classe, qua 
advecti ab domo fuerant, multum in ora maris eius, quod accolunt, potuere, primo 
in insulas Aenariam et Pithecusas egressi, deinde in continentem ausi sedes trans- 
ferre.”” As has often been noted, Livy here seems to mention Ischia twice by the 
two names of Aenaria and Pithecusae, and to forget Prochyta, or Procida. Pom- 
ponius Mela (ii. 121), too, mentions Prochyta in addition to Aenaria and Pithe- 
cusae. One might be tempted to believe both Mela and Ovid wrong. Ovid 
(Met. xiv. 89 f.) makes the statement: ‘‘Inarinem Prochytenque legit sterilique 
locatas—colle Pithecusas.” It is quite possible, however, as we shall see, that the 
poet distinguishes the island of Ischia from the city of Pithecusae. 


3 The same norms and precautions which Thucydides (vi. 2. 6) considers as 
characteristic of Phoenician factories have, of course, value in the case of the 
earliest Greek colonization, and of every other of the same nature. 

4 See my Storia di Roma I, 2, pp. 487 ff., for the great value of the statements in 


181 


182 ANCIENT ITALY 


In the present state of our knowledge we cannot be certain of 
the origin or the value of the report that Cumae was the oldest of 
the Greek colonies of Sicily and Italy, and was therefore earlier 
than those which arose on the Strait of Messina and the Ionian 
coast. Nor is it easy to determine why its foundation was attrib- 
uted to a date anterior to 1000 B. c.—several centuries earlier than 
the historical and apparently reliable date assigned for the origin 
of the other Greek colonies in the West.t For our purpose it is 
enough to note as certain that Cumae was the earliest colony on 
the shores of the region inhabited by the Opici, just as Pithecusae 
or Ischia, which preceded it, was the first region to receive the 
Euboeans, who in later periods were to do so much toward civiliz- 
ing the country which they inhabited. 

A fresh examination of the problems involved in the history 
of Campania is far from useless, and will be undertaken by me 
from time to time; but, aside from this, owing to such noble, 
even though remote, origin as that mentioned above, the details 
pertaining to the history of Ischia are peculiarly attractive. This 
charm is further increased by the marvelous beauty of that classic 
region, and by the fact that there is no noteworthy event connected 
with the maritime history of southern Italy, with which the name 
of Ischia is not in some manner joined. : 

The ancients praised the virtues of the health-giving waters 
of Epomeus, but they seem to have suffered from its wrath much 
more frequently than have the modern inhabitants of the island.? 
It is perhaps due to this greater volcanic activity that the safe and 
welcome refuge of Alphonse of Aragon, Pontanus, Jovius, Vit- 
Livy in regard to Naples. It is worthy of note that Velleius (i. 11) makes no 
mention of the halt of the Chalcidians at Pithecusae. 


t See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 158 ff., where these various problems 
are discussed. 

2 The ancients supposed that the giant Typhon, overcome by the thunderbolt 
of Jove, was lying under Epomeus. Strabo (v, p. 247 C.) recalls three eruptions: 
(1) that which drove out the Eretrians and Chalcidians; (2) that which occurred 
shortly after 474 B.c. and caused the Syracusans to leave the island; (3) that 
which took place shortly before the birth of Timaeus. A fourth eruption, in g1 B. C., 
is mentioned by Julius Obsequens, 54 (114). Timaeus (loc. cit.) says that the 
ancients narrated many wonderful things in regard to Ischia. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 183 


toria Colonna, and Maria of Aragon, although celebrated by 
Pindar and Vergil, did not in early times offer attractions to men 
who were famous in politics or in letters, or at least was not fre- 
quented by them to such a degree as were Baiae, Puteoli, and 
Capri.? 

Even more than by the beauty of land and sky, and the excel- 
lence of the waters, the Chalcidians and Eretrians were probably 
attracted by the commercial opportunities which Ischia offered. 
And it is clear that even after the foundation of Cumae a Greek 
city must have flourished on the island. It is not equally easy to 
decide in what way the inhabitants of Pithecusae or Ischia attained 
noteworthy prosperity. According to Strabo, this was due to the 
fertility of the soil (evxap7réa) and to the gold mines (Ta ypuceta).? 
The statement concerning the fertility needs no comment. Even 
today, after such a lapse of time, Ischia may well boast of the 
extraordinary productive power of its soil. It is far different in 
regard to the gold mines. Although various writers on Ischian 
affairs, from the time of the Renaissance on, have discussed the 
existence of such mines in antiquity, they have been able to offer 


1 It is obvious, however, that even in antiquity Ischia must have attracted 
numerous visitors, if only for the salubrity of its waters. Among the inscriptions 
dedicated to the protecting deities of the springs are one of a freedwoman of Poppaea 
(CIL, X, 6787), and another of Lacco (ibid., 6804) recalling a freedwoman of the 
Antonines who was related to the Julian gens. From this latter inscription (unless, 
like 6802 from the same place, it was imported from a some other locality) it would 
seem that the imperial family held possessions on the island. At a more recent 
period various Neapolitan princes, such as Alphonse the Magnificent, had interests 
there. 

As has been noted by Fraccaroli (Per la chronologia delle odi di Pindaro, p. 57), 
the most famous of those who in antiquity seem to have made use of the waters of 
Ischia was Hiero of Syracuse, who in 474, in spite of illness, was present at the 
battle of Cumae. He was afflicted with gravel, and the waters of Pithecusae were 
especially famous for their power to cure this malady (cf. Strab. v, p. 248C ; 
Plin, N. H. xxxi. 9). It is by no means improbable, as Fraccaroli conjectures, 
that on the occasion when Hiero built a fortress and established a garrison on the 
island (cf. Strab., loc. cit.) he may also have tested upon himself the power of 
the waters. 

2Strab. v, p. 247 C.: TW@nxovocas 8° Eperpeets @xicav xal Xadxidels, ebrvx7}- 
cavres [dé] 50 edxapriav kal dca Ta xpuceia eédAirov Thy vigov Kata ordouy, boTEpov 
be -Kal bad ceopav ébedabévres kal dvapvonudtrwy mupds Kal OaddAdoons Kal Jepudy 
vidrwr. 


184 ANCIENT ITALY 


no other proof than the words of the Greek geographer. More- 
over, all of the less credulous writers, and those less blinded by 
love of their country, have been forced to recognize that no trace 
of such mines has been found in Ischia,? and I am assured by a 
young and able geologist, who has also made a careful study of 
the neighboring regions, and to whom I turned after I had been 
led by historical and literary reasons to judge the traditional data 
without value, that the geological formation excludes the possi- 
bility of finding gold there at any period. 

In considering the above-mentioned passage from Strabo, it 
seemed to me some years ago that there must be some error, and 
that the pretended gold mines must be due to a corruption of the 


1 A definite statement that such mines existed seems to be made by Iasolino, 
Dei rimedi naturali che sono nell’ isola di Pithecusa (Naples, 1588), p. 25. He 
writes: ‘And there are gold mines, as is shown not only by Strabo, but also by 
modern testimony. Thus we have the authority of Giovanni Elisio, who in the 
book on the Bagni di Terra di Lavoro ... . says that the island of Ischia pro- 
duced abundantly and luxuriantly diverse fruits and excellent grain, much wine, 
sulphur, alum and gold, as has also been discovered and proved by the most noble 
and clever Venetiani.” Cf. also p. 38: “There is also a gold mine at Campag- 
nano, near the chapel of S. Sebastian. This I believe to be the one mentioned by 
Strabo, which was examined and tested during the last few years by the Vene- 
tiani, as we learn from Giovanni Elisio.” In the book of Elisio, however (Opus- 
culum de balneis [also republished by Scipione Mazzella, Naples, 1591], p. 38) there 
is no allusion to this. 

2 Chevalley de Rivaz (Description des eaux minero-thermales et des étuves de 
Pile d’Ischia [Naples, 1846], p. 13) writes: “In regard to the gold mines which 
according to Strabo fomerly existed on this island, there is no longer any trace of 
this precious metal to be found, although it may possibly have existed there once. 
The rich mines of Nagyac, situated in the crater of an extinct volcano, prove that 
the existence of a gold mine in a volcanic region is not impossible.”” Chevalley here 
certainly follows Breislak (Topografia fisica della Campania [Florence, 1798], p. 315), 
who, after confessing that at his time there were no traces of gold mines on Ischia, 
cites the mine of Nagyac, and, relying upon the statement of Strabo alone, con- 
cludes that ‘‘at the time of the Eretrians such a mine could have existed on Ischia, 
and was destroyed or buried by the subsequent eruptions.” Beloch (Campanien, 
p. 207) limits himself to the observation that the mines mentioned by Strabo have 
long been exhausted, and that their location is unknown. 


3I am indebted for this information to Dr. G. de Lorenzo, who together with 
C. Riva has written the article, “Il cratere di Vivara nelle isole Flegree,”’ in the 
Atti d. R. Accad. (Naples, 1900). For the geological formation of Ischia se¢e Fuchs, 
L’isola d’Ischia (Florence, 1872). 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 185 


text. For example, it seemed to me, and still seems, improbable 
that they should not have been mentioned by other writers, such 
as Pliny, who have discussed the peculiarities of the island. Con- 
sidering also that by the Euboeans and Campanians the island was 
called Aenaria, I came to the conclusion that Ischia derived this 
name from the commercein copper. Since no copper is found on 
the island, however, the name must have been derived from a 
storehouse of the metal which formed an important article of 
commerce between the Etruscans and the Greek colonies, just 
as at the neighboring Puteoli the iron was deposited which had been 
brought from Elba. This led to the final conclusion that instead 
of xpuceia we should read yadxeta, and that we have the Latin 
equivalent of this word in Aenaria.* 

The above hypothesis, however, had no real historical founda- 
tion, and there is no especial reason for supposing that the trade in 
Etruscan copper was carried on more on Ischia than at any other 
point of the Campanian coast. On the other hand, a more careful 
examination of the peculiarities of the island, made on the occasion 
of a recent visit to Ischia, has led to the formation of a hypothesis 
which I regard as better than the other, and which, being based on a 
fact which has, so far as I know, hitherto escaped observation in this 
connection, I am emboldened to submit to the judgment of students. 

We do not know why Ischia was called Aenaria, nor by whom it 
was first brought into relation with the myth of Aeneas.? In the 
same way, the origin of the name “Pithecusae” is obscure. A 
Greek legend affirms that the island was originally inhabited by 
the malicious Cercopes, who were said to have been changed into 
monkeys or 7(@nxot. It is uncertain, however, whether this myth, 
which is quoted by the historian Xenagoras of the Alexandrine 
age, has any connection with a legend earlier than the one of 
Aeneas just mentioned. Be that as it may, it will suffice to note 
that both of these explanations of the names “ Aenaria” and 

t See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 159, n. 1. 
2 As is well known, both this myth and this etymology are found even in Nae- 
vius, frr. 17 ff., Baehrens. 


3 Xenag., fr. 13,.in Miiller, F. H. G., IV, p. 528; cf. the other references col- 
lected by Seeliger, s. v. ‘‘Kerkopen” in Roscher, II, p. 1170. 


186 ANCIENT ITALY 


“‘Pithecusae” derive their origin from cults and myths which at a 
fairly early period were localized on these and the neighboring 
shores. The name of ‘“ Aenaria,”’ like “ Procida,” ‘‘ Caieta,” and 
“TLeucosia,” was brought more or less into connection with the 
cycle of legends relating to Aeneas, whose myth as early as the 
sixth century had been connected with these shores by Stesichorus 
of Himera. The derivation of “ Pithecusae” from the monkeys, 
on the other hand, seems to be connected with the deeds of 
Hercules, which in neighboring regions, such as Heracleion 
or Herculaneum, at Baiae, and on the near-by Via Heraclea, 
had been localized by the Chalcidians, who had brought the 
cult with them from their native land.t | For our purpose it is 
worthy of note that still another derivation of ‘“ Pithecusae” was 
given. Pliny says that it was thus called, not “a simiarum multi- 
tudine, ut aliqui existimavere, sed a figlinis doliorum.”? Although 
there is no reason for preferring the latter of these derivations to 
the former, it is difficult to understand how Pliny, who was the 
prefect of the fleet of Misenum, and who was fairly well acquainted 
with this and the neighboring regions, could have insisted so 
strongly on the derivation of the name “a figlinis doliorum,”’ if 
there had not existed at Pithecusae a manufactory of dolia, or 
m(Oor, and of clay vessels in general. 

Today Ischia has no reputation for the production of pottery, 
but even to our day it has furnished in abundance the best of 
material for such an industry. De Siano, a writer of the begin- 
ning of the nineteenth century says: 


In various places on the island is found a clayey earth in soft, tenacious, 
and glutinous masses, which some term plastic clay, especially in the territory 
of Casamicciola, where it is commonly called creta. The income furnished 
by this article of commerce amounts to 30,000 ducats a year. Some of it is 
employed on the spot for making vases and bricks, and some is transported 
to Naples for making the vasellame del Ponte. It is there mixed with other 
clayey earths. The wonder is that the enormous yearly consumption which 
has gone on for so many centuries .. . .3 

t The myth of the Cercopes seems to have originated at Thermopylae; cf. 
Seeliger, loc. cit. - : 

2Plin., N. H. iii. 82. 

3F. De Siano, Brevi e succinte notizie di storia naturale e civile dell’ isola 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 187 


This last particular is confirmed by Capaccio, a Neapolitan writer 
of the seventeenth century, who affirms that the Neapolitans had 
long made use of Ischian clay for making bricks.‘ All of the 
writers on Ischian conditions, moreover, have alluded to the enor- 
mous quantity of clay which was annually exported from the beds 
near Casamicciola. 

At the present day this condition of affairs is greatly changed. 
During a recent visit to Casamicciola I ascertained that very little 
clay is now being produced. The workmen assured me that up to 
1883, the date of the last earthquake, there were in the neighbor- 
hood of Casamicciola between sixty and seventy manufacturies of 
clay objects, and that their produce was exported throughout the 
gulfs of Gaeta and Naples as far as Salerno. Today Gaeta and 
Sessa are the greatest producers, and have for a long time supplied 
the Neapolitan market. 

If during the last few centuries the excellent and abundant clay 
of Ischia has been so freely used in the fabrication of vases and 
bricks for Naples, it would be wrong to conclude that Pliny 
erred when he alluded to the manufacture of dolia in Pithe- 
cusae.? Moreover, if we consider the important part played in 
ancient times by the production of clay objects for exportation, 
and that clay vases were imported and scattered in large quan- 
tities by the Greek colonists among the indigenous peoples 
of Italy, it is more than natural to believe that the commerce 
in clay on Ischia was even more important in ancient than 
in modern times. If this is correct, the passage in Strabo which 
speaks of the ypuceta or gold mines, and which seems to me cor- 
d’Ischia, pp. 22 ff.; cf. Breislak, Topografia fisica della Campania, p. 333, who 
alludes to the many tunnels in the hill of Casamicciola covered with such plastic 
clay. See Chevalley de Rivaz, op. cit., p. 14. 

D’Ascia (Storia dell’ isola d’Ischia [Naples, 1868], p. 67) observes that the 
commerce in this clay, termed bianchetto, was at one time very important, but that 
when other deposits were found in Sicily “this variety lost in reputation, and its 
production was abandoned.” A glance at the map which accompanies the work of 
Fuchs, already referred to, will show in what parts of the island such clay appears. 

t Capaccio, I] forestiero (Naples, 1634), p. 940. 

2 The ancient dolia discovered at Casamicciola are mentioned by G. A. D’Aloi- 
sio, L’infermo istrutto (Naples, 1757), p- 4- 


188 ANCIENT ITALY 


rupt, would be susceptible of a correction deserving of considera- 
tion. Instead of edtuynoavtes 8 evxapriav Kal dia Ta ypvocia 
it would seem better to read for the last word yutpeta. The 
Chalcidians and Eretrians would thus have become rich on account 
of the fertility of the soil and the manufacture of xyu7paz, or pots of 
clay. Certainly from a purely paleographical standpoint the sub- 
stitution of XY TPEIA for the corrupt XPYCEIA? presents no difficulty. 
Just as among the Romans there were places for the fabrication of 
vases and bricks termed Figulinae,so among the Greeks there 
were localities and cities which for the same reasons were called 
Xvrpov, Xvtpor and Xutpd7rons.? 

If the above emendation is correct, and Strabo wished to say 
that the Chalcidians and Eretrians prospered on account of the 
fertility of the soil of Ischia, and on account of the manufacture of 
clay vessels (the “figlinae doliorum” mentioned by Pliny), the 
result is more important than appears at the first glance. Given 
the great importance of the trade in vases in antiquity, and keeping 
in mind the extended commerce carried on by the Chalcidians of 
Cumae, Ischia, and the neighboring regions with the natives of the 
Volscian, Latin, and Etruscan territory, it would be worth while 
to discover how much, if any, of the whitish ware known by the 
name of “Chalcidian,” and frequently found in the excavations in 
the above-mentioned regions, could have come from Ischia. To 
settle such a question, and to establish whether Pithecusae was 
really a center for the production and exportation of such wares, 
methodical exploration is of course necessary. To be sure, the 
region of Ischia where clay abounds is that which has been the 
most transformed by earthquakes, volcanic upheavals, and the 
action of the mineral springs, but the traces of this branch of the 
commecrial activity of the ancient Chalcidians could hardly escape 
the keen glance of a trained archaeologist. Furthermore, as we 
shall see, there are other regions of the island which, if carefully 
examined, would doubtless furnish elements for comparison. If 
such an undertaking were successful, it would perhaps aid in find- 

t Cf. Suid., s. v. xuTpetov, év @ al xvrpar; Hesych., s. v. xUTpat. TA xUTpoToa. 


a See Pape-Benseler, Griechische Eigennamen, s. wv. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 189 


ing the key to more than one of the problems pertaining to the 
earliest commercial relations existing between the Greeks and the 
indigenous populations of the peninsula. It should not be for- 
gotten that Pithecusae, which we are supposing also to have been 
famous for its ancient yutpeta, was the earliest Greek factory on 
the shores facing Campania, and possibly, if ancient writers tell the 
truth, in all Italy. 


II 


With this problem is in part connected another of no less 
importance, concerning the time when the Syracusans occupied 
and abandoned the island, and also concerning the place they 
occupied and the time when the Neapolitans succeeded them. 
This second problem is connected with the topography and strategic 
importance of the island. 

In ancient times—and, we may add, down to a period not 
very distant from our own—lIschia was an important strategic 
position. It was so well adapted for sheltering pirates and for 
favoring maritime commerce that those who inhabited the opposite 
shores of the peninsula naturally sought to secure its possession for 
themselves. Moreover, if we keep in mind the character of ancient 
navigation, which sought as far as possible to hug the shore, it is 
evident that the control of Ischia meant the ability to command the 
two channels of Procida, and to favor or to hinder, as the case 
might be, the passage of ships plying between the coast of Etruria 
and Latium on the one hand, and Naples and the shores of Magna 
Graecia on the other. 

That Cumae and her colony Parthenope, which soon became 
her rival,t should have wished to obtain control of the neighboring 
island, or at least to establish friendly relations with it, requires 
no demonstration. It is sufficient to note that, if the Pithecusians 
participated with the Cumaeans in the founding of Naples,’ this 
shows that the relations which existed in the fifth century between 
the Cumaean Rhodians of Parthenope and the island of Ischia 


t Cf. Lutat., fr. 2, Peter. 


2Strab. v, p. 246C.: Xadrxidets éryxnoay (i.e., Naples) cat WcOnxovecalwy 
thyes kal ’AOnvalwy. 


190 ANCIENT ITALY 


were of a friendly nature. On Ischia too, as on other occasions, 
some of the Greeks who fled from the invading Samnites when, in 
438 and 421, they seized Capua and Cumae,? must have found 
refuge. 

Ischia, together with the small islands of Procida and the rock 
of Vivara, formed a barrier which prevented the Tyrrhenian 
pirates from approaching unobserved the shores of Campania and 
Magna Graecia.? At least it served as an outpost, made it easier 
to attack hostile ships, and rendered it impossible for the Etruscans 
and the Volscians of Antium to present themselves unexpectedly 
off the coast of the Gulfs of Dicaearchia (Puteoli) and of Naples. * 
Considering the strategic importance of Ischia, we understand how 
Hiero of Syracuse, when in 474 B.c. he hastened to Cumae to 
give battle to the Tyrrhenian fleet, should have made them pay 
dearly for his non-disinterested intervention, by seizing the island 
and founding a fortress there. 

Strabo, who mentions this fact, adds that, on account of the 
volcanic activity and the earthquakes, the soldiers sent by Hiero 
abandoned the island and the fortress which they had just com- 
pleted, and that immediately afterward the Neapolitans occupied 
both the fortress and the island. 

Where was this fortress located, and at what time did the 
Neapolitans seize the island after the departure of the Syracusans ? 
Such questions are difficult to answer, and so far as I know, have 
been badly propounded, and often incorrectly solved, by the vari- 
ous writers on the subject of Ischia, who have not carefully exam- 
ined the passage in Strabo, and have been led to erroneous infer- 
ences by an inscription which has now disappeared, but which 
was long visible, cut on a mass of rock on Monte di Vico, above 
Lacco Ameno. The inscription, which has often been published, 
reads as follows: Ha«sos Nuppiov, Matos [laxtdrov apEavtes ave- 
Onkay To Torx lov Kal OF otpati@rat.s Inthisinscription, which even 


EDAV. AV 5-37.05, 44125. ct, Didd: ‘xu; 3-676; 


2 One is reminded of the fortress of Scylla built by Anaxilaus of Regium, the 
contemporary of Hiero, to check the Etruscan pirates (Strab. vi, p. 257 C.). 


3 Kaibel, 7.G.S.J., 894. I was unable to find this monument on the occasion 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA IgI 


in the names of the leaders seems to reveal the Neapolitan domi- 
nation of the island, several writers have seen a confirmation of the 
statement of Strabo, and think that it refers to the arrival of the 
Neapolitan garrison and its substitution for that of Syracuse.* 

To this should be objected that the meaning of the passage in 
Strabo is by no means evident, and that it offers material for much 
doubt. From achronological standpoint the words ot wreupOevtes 
mapa ‘lépwvos tov Tupavvov Tov Xupaxovoiwv é&éduTrov TO KaTa- 
oxevacbev bd éavtav Teiyos Kal THY vycov. érredOovTes Se 
NeamvoXitat xatéoxov are not clear. The city of Naples, to judge 
by literary evidence, did not arise before 446, when Thurii was 
founded. This results from a fragment of Timaeus? which 
alludes to the participation of the Athenians in the Neapolitan 
festivals in honor of Parthenope. The presence of Athenians in 
Naples is also recalled by Strabo, and is attested by the types of 
several Neapolitan coins, which imitate those of Thurii. 

In opposition to the above chronological result it should be 
noted that the earliest Neapolitan coins are not those with the 
type of the Athena of Thurii, as is held by the best numismatists. 
The first coins of Naples recall those of Terina and are connected 
in substance with those of Syracuse between 470 and 446 B. c.3 


of a recent visit to Monte di Vico, and learned that it had been thrown down from the 
mountain into the tonnaro below (cf. Beloch, Campanien, p. 208), although it 
deserved preservation more than any other of the national monuments of Ischia. 
Several of the older inhabitants recall the existence of the inscription, and connect 
its contents with the very fact of the overthrowing of the mass of rock upon which 
it was inscribed. The monument has already given occasion for the formation of 
a local legend. 

tStrab. v, p. 247C. Fuchs (0. cit., pp. 46f.), like many others, reproduces 
this erroneous opinion of the local writers. 

2 Tim., fr.g9, M. For the origin of Naples see my “La missione civile e po- 
litica di Napoli nell’ antichita,”’ in the Neapolitan periodical Flegrea, February, 1900. 

3 I am indebted for this important observation, which overthrows the chronol- 
ogy of Head (Hist. num., p. 32), to the courtesy of Sig. Gabrici, director of the coin 
department of the Neapolitan museum. See Garrucci (Mon. d. Ital. ant., 84, 18) 
for the similar coins of Naples and Terina, and cf. Head, op. cit., p. 96. For 
those of Syracuse see Holm (Geschichte Siciliens, III, Plates I, II); cf. also the 
bull’s head on the coins of Gela from about the middle of the fifth century. 

It will not do, however, to lay too much stress on the archaic letters of the 


192 ANCIENT ITALY 


Thus Naples, instead of about 446 B. C., seems to have arisen some 
decades earlier, and the Attic element does not seem to have pene- 
trated there until some time later. 

But even the numismatical evidence does not support us as 
well as might be desired. Even the earliest Neapolitan coins may 
easily be attributed to a period as late as 450 B.c. On the other 
hand, the fragment of Timaeus which makes explicit mention of 
the intervention of the Athenians at the time of the first or second 
expedition against Syracuse, does not exclude the possibility that 
some decades earlier than 427 or 415 B. c. Athens may have par- 
ticipated in the foundation of Naples, as Strabo seems to imply. 
The coins lead us to suspect, what would be most important if true, 
that the Attic-Thurian element of 446-427 was preceded by 
another, purely indigenous, derived from Cumae and Pithecusae; 
or, in other words, Chalcidian. Even this conclusion, however, 
is not entirely certain, since with the words tiwes ’“AOnvaiwv the 
sources of Strabo indicate that even at first the Attic influence was 
rather weak. The imitation of the Thurian coins with the figure of 
Athena could have occurred some years later, after the relations 
with this metropolis of Attic origin had become closer and more 
important. To sum up, various indications lead us to believe 
that Naples arose between 480 and 446, but in the present state 
of our knowledge we cannot decide in what decade its foundation 
occurred, nor when the Attic element first entered. 

In case Naples was not founded till about 446 B. C., it is impos- 
sible that the Neapolitans could have seized Ischia after 474, when 
the soldiers of Hiero left. Either Strabo confounded the Nea- 
politans with the Parthenopeans who inhabited the Rhodian 
Palaeopolis (the Pizzofalcone of the present day), or else his words 
erreAOovtes 5€ NeatroXita xatéoyov should not be interpreted as 
referring to an immediate occupation on the part of the Neapolitans 
after the Syracusans had left. 

On the other hand, it is hardly probable that Syracuse would 
Neapolitan coins with the type of Terina, since similar letters appear on the coins 


of the Campanian Hyria from about 420 B. c. (cf. Head, op. cit., p. 32) and on the 
oldest Campanian coins, which cannot date before 438 B. c. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 193 


have given up her interests in Ischia in the years following the 
death of Hiero (467) and the driving-out of the Deinomenids 
(466 B.c.). The maritime policy of the Syracusan republic was 
precisely similar to that of the Deinomenids and that which was 
later held by the two Dionysii. Considering that about 453 the 
Syracusans, more hostile than ever toward the Etruscans, seized 
Elba, and pushed as far as Corsica,* and that about 384 B.C. 
Dionysius pressed as far as the coast of Etruria and Corsica,? it is 
not probable that after 466, when Thrasybulus, the brother of Hiero, 
was driven out, and when the democratic government was estab- 
lished, Syracuse should have entirely abandoned her plan of guard- 
ing the Campanian coast, and of keeping on that account a foothold 
on Ischia. 

The Greek inscription of Monte di Vico seems to indicate that 
the Neapolitans expected to construct a fortress there, and the 
Oscan names of the leaders cause us to think that this occurred, 
not about 480-440, when Naples arose as a purely Greek city, but 
rather several generations later, when the Samnite invaders had 
forced their way in, and formed a second element in the make-up 
of the population.s The inscription of Monte di Vico (possibly 


t Diod. xi. 88 f. 2 Diod. xv. 14; Strab. v, p. 225 C. 


3 This is shown by Strab. (v, p. 246(C.), who, after stating that Naples was 
founded by Chalcidians of Cumae, and some Pithecusians and Athenians, observes: 
borepov 5¢ Kauravdév rivas édéfavro cuvolxous dtxoorarhoarres kal HvayKkdoOnoay Tots 
éxOlaros ws olxevordros xphoacbat, ére:dy Tovs olxelous dddoTplous Excxov. pwnvier dé 
Ta T&v Snudpxwy dvouara, Ta wey para ‘EAnuxa dvra, Ta 8 borepa rots ‘EAAnukKols 
dvawlé Ta Kayrrankd. 

In 326 B. c. we see that at Naples the two praetores were called Nymphius and 
Charilaus, one a Greek and the other a Samnite name (Liv. viii. 25. 9), and that the 
two racial elements were represented in the government of the city. The inscrip- 
tion of Monte di Vico, however, offers two Campanian names only. Should we 
see in this an indication that the soldiers who built the fortress were mercenaries, or 
should we hold that the Graeco-Neapolitan element had lost interest in military 
affairs, and had turned them over to the Campanian Samnites? This latter 
hypothesis receives support from the fact that in 326 it was the Samnites and Nolans 
who assumed the task of defending Naples against the Romans. In the present 
state of our knowledge, however, it would be hazardous to venture any definite 
conclusions. 

The question has also been raised as to whether Nymphius, father of Paquius, 
and one of the two Neapolitan generals of the inscription, may be identified with the 


194 ANCIENT ITALY 


for paleographical reasons as well) does not seem to be earlier than 
400 B.C., and may be of even later date.t There is no reason, 
therefore, for bringing it into relation with the passage in Strabo 
mentioned above, nor for deciding from it that the fortress of Hiero 
was situated there. Considerations of a strategical nature would 
lead us to locate the fortress elsewhere. 

To be sure, Monte di Vico is a strategic position of some im- 
portance. From it one could survey the ships coming from Circeii, 
Tarracina, and Formiae, and its possession made it possible to 
protect the island from sudden attacks from the southwest. Such 
a position also secured the possession of the island on the side 
toward Casamicciola and Lacco, and on the side occupied by the 
fertile plain of Forio. But on the opposite side of the island, 
beside the channel of Procida, and facing the shore of Cumae, 
rises from the water the imposing rock upon which is still situated 
the castle of Ischia, of much greater strategic importance. Monte 
di Vico forms a natural bulwark for the village of Lacco Ameno 
and guards its inhabitants against sudden attacks from the north 
and the southwest. The castle of Ischia, on the other hand, 
served to survey the entire communication between the shores of 
Etruria, Latium, Magna Graecia, and Sicily. Monte di Vico 
was accessible by land and offered a strong position, which was 
naturally fortified by whoever was in possession of the island; 
but from the castle of Ischia, strong by nature and entirely isolated 
by the sea, it was possible to observe every ship coming from Sicily, 
Africa, the Gulf of Naples, Cumae, and Mount Circeius. It was 
the point which before all others must have attracted the attention 
of one, such as Hiero, who aimed to watch the movements both of 
his allies of Cumae and of the coast of Campania, and also those of 
famous Neapolitan Nypsius, a general of Dionysius II (see Diod. xvi. 18-20). It 
would seem impossible to prove anything in this regard, since the name “‘ Nypsius,”’ 
which would seem to be the same as that of the Nymphius who was praetor in 326, 
appears on other inscriptions from Naples (e. g., Kaibel, No. 726) and also from 
Capua (CIL, X, 4251). Such a name may have been fairly common at Naples 
and in Campania. 

t Beloch, in Campanien, p. 206, referred the inscription to the fourth century, 
and later in the Ergdnzungen, p. 447, to the third century. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 195 


the Etruscans. It is quite probable that the Syracusans of Hiero, 
after they had seized the island, may have obtained a foothold at 
Lacco, and afterward upon the Monte di Vico above. The most 
elementary strategical considerations, however, lead one to con- 
clude that the castle where Hiero placed his garrison could have 
been no other than the Castle of Ischia in which, some nineteen 
centuries later, Alphonse of Aragon was to place his 300 faithful 
Catalans. The history of Ischia, whether at the time of the Vespers 
which again brought it into relation with Sicily, or in the following 
period, records the struggles for this castle, but is silent concerning 
Monte di Vico, which occupied a much inferior position from a 
military point of view. 

These statements are confirmed by several mediaeval docu- 
ments which, so far as I know, have not as yet been made use of 
in this connection. In these are mentioned various localities of 
Ischia, and among them the Castrum Gironis as clearly distin- 
guished from Monte di Vico. For unknown reasons certain 
writers have placed this castrum at Castiglione, between Ischia 
and Casamicciola, where there once existed ruins of which all 
trace has disappeared. From the treaty of 1128 between Sergius, 
duke of Naples, and the people of Gaeta, it appears that the Cas- 
trum Gironis was distinct not only from Monte di Vico, but also 
from the island of Ischia itself.2_ Finally, that the Castrum Gironis 
was the same as the modern Castle of Ischia, we learn from the 
Renaissance writers, who place the city of Geronda beside the 
place which in 1301 or 1302 was desolated by a volcanic eruption, 
of which traces are still visible. Geronda occupied a place which 

t Jasolino (op. cit., p. 29) speaks of the ruins which in the sixteenth century 
still existed at Castiglione: ‘‘ Under said castle, on the shore of the sea, gush forth 
the baths termed Castiglione, of wonderful power. [There one sees] extensive 


ruins of former buildings. We hold that this was an ancient city and possibly 
Hiero, the tyrant, who according to Strabo built the walls and inhabited ... .” 


2 That the Castrum Gironis was a separate locality from Monte di Vico appears 
with all certainty from a document of 1036; see Capassus, Monumenta ad ducatus 
Neapolitani historiam pertinentia, II, n. 458, p. 283. In the treaty of Duke 
Sergius (Capassus /oc. cit., p. 159) reference is made to the inhabitants “in Insula 
maiore [i. e. Ischia] et Gerone et Procitha.” 


196 ANCIENT ITALY 


is even today called the Arso and Cremate (i. e., “burnt,”? near 
the village of Ischia, and was therefore near the Castle of Ischia 
and of Hiero. 


Til 


From a complex of facts it would seem that the fortress of the 
Syracusans was the same as the Castle of Ischia, and that this 
was later occupied by the Neapolitans, who, like Hiero, were 
naturally interested in controlling the traffic through the channel 
of Procida.2 From another group of facts, on the other hand, we 
would be led to believe that Pithecussae, the médus “EAXAnvis 
of Scylax, must be sought, as has often been done, at Monte di 
Vico, or on the adjacent bay of Lacco. The inscription of Monte 
di Vico shows that about the fourth century the place was occupied 
by the Neapolitans. Moreover, the early remains found at Lacco, 
and the pottery, said to be of Greek workmanship, discovered in 
the necropolis of the Valle di S. Montano below Monte di Vico, 
would seem to show that a Greek city existed in that region. 
This supposition is strengthened by the existence of a tonnara, or 


1E. g., Elisius, Opusculum de balneis (reprint by Mazella [Naples, 1591], 
p. 38): “‘usque ad urbem Gerundam,” which existed at the place ‘“‘la Cremata.” 
Of the name Castrum Gironis to indicate the Castle of Ischia a trace exists in the 
popular designation (which I found still to exist) of the place as the Castello di 
Nerone. It need cause no surprise that the name of “Castle of Hiero”’ was main- 
tained throughout antiquity and in mediaeval times until after 1000 A. D. 

The age of the above-quoted documents, and the character of the time when 
they were collected, exclude at any rate that the name of Castrum Gironis arose as a 
result of literary reminiscence. Such, on the other hand, was really the case in 
regard to the names Valle de Negroponte and Casa Cumana which from Renais- 
sance times on were given to places near Casamicciola, and which were judged to 
be the seat of Chalcidians from the Black Sea, or from Euboea, and of the early 
Cumaeans; e. g., Iasolino, op. cit., p. 30. 


2'The importance of Ischia, the Castle of Ischia, Procida, and Monte di 
Procida for the Neapolitans in their military operations against Gaeta appears 
from the above-mentioned treaty of Sergius. From this it is easy to infer that 
these localities were of analogous strategic importance to the ancient Neapolitans 
in their wars against the Campanians, Volscians, and Etruscans. 


3 For the remains at Lacco and Monte di Vico, and for the tombs of the Valle 
- di S. Montano, see De Siano, op. cit., pp. 73 ff., and Chevalley de Rivaz, op. cit., 
p. 55, who affirms that the vases found there were of Greek manufacture. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 197 


place for catching tunny-fish, below Monte di Vico, and especially 
by the fact that at Lacco, S. Restituta is honored. She is the 
patroness of the whole island, and her cult is joined with that of the 
cathedral at Naples. From this may be inferred that after the 
fourth century and during the entire Roman period, Lacco was the 
chief town of the island, and that the reference in Pseudo-Scylax' 
is to Monte di Vico. | 

Such an identification is by no means certain, however, and it is 
quite possible that the Castle of Hiero or Castle of Ischia was 
still occupied in the fourth century. In addition to the above- 
mentioned mediaeval documents, this opinion may find confirma- 
tion in the verses of Ovid: 

Inarimen Prochytenque legit sterilique locatas 
Colle Pithecusas.? 

The poet distinguishes Pithecussae from Inarime and from 
Ischia in the same way that in the agreement of Duke Sergius the 
Castrum Gironis (Castle of Ischia) is distinguished from the 
Insula Maior, or Ischia. That in Ovid we have not to deal with 
a mere error and case of duplication may perhaps be deduced from 
passages in Pomponius Mela? and Martianus Capella,4 who 
likewise distinguish Pithecusa from Aenaria and from Ischia. 
Whatever may be said of these last-named authors, the double 
mention of Pithecusa and Inarime is clear when we remember 
that up to the time of Alphonse of Aragon the Castle of Ischia was 
entirely surrounded by the sea, and therefore constituted an island 
by itself, separate from the larger island. Possibly this dupli- 
cation in the names of cities and islands explains why in 
Strabo, Livy, and Pliny the name of “‘ Pithecusa” appears beside 
that of “‘ Pithecussae.”’ 

In favor of the above interpretation of the words of Ovid, and 


t Pseud.-Scyl. 10: IWcOjxoveca vijcos cal rods ‘EXAnvls, 
2 Ov., Met. xiv. 89 f. 
3 Pomp. Mel. ii. 121: “set Pithecusa, Leucothea, Aenaria.” 


4 Mart. Capp. vi. 644: ‘“Prochyta, Abaenaria Inarime a Graecis dicta, Pithe- 
cusa.”” See above for the passage in Liv. viii. 22: “primo in insulas Aenariam et 
Pithecusas egressi.” 


198 ANCIENT ITALY 


contrary to the opinion of those, such as Beloch and Kiepert, who 
place the city of Pithecussae at Monte di Vico, it may be noted that 
the words sterilique locatas colle Pithecussas apply much better to 
the rocky Castle of Ischia than to the fertile Monte di Vico. At 
any rate, we must abandon the hypothesis of Beloch, that all of 
Monte di Vico was occupied by the city of Pithecussae.* In that 
case Pithecussae would have been a city of considerable size, 
instead of the small village, proportionate to the size of the island, 
which one would expect to find. Today Ischia has about 25,000 
inhabitants. If we keep in mind the lesser density of population 
in ancient times, as brought out by Beloch himself in his excellent 
work, it seems hardly probable, if not impossible, that a city could 
have existed on Monte di Vico with a perimeter surrounding the 
entire height. It is much more reasonable to suppose that there 
was a fortress on the hill perhaps, but that the population dwelt, 
not on the broad plateau of difficult access and exposed to the 
winds, but near the shore below, where the pleasing and sheltered 
village of Lacco is situated today. The isolated totyvov of the 
inscription, instead of being an extended and elaborate wall sur- 
rounding the height, as Beloch thinks, was more probably a small 
fortress or redoubt, similar to that of much more recent date which 
still stands above the tonnara, and near which once stood the block 
of stone on which the inscription was carved. 

But even in case future archaeological exploration should 
prove the contrary theory to be true, and:it be shown that at least 
from the fourth century on, the Pithecussa of Pseudo-Scylax occu- 
pied the present site of Lacco and Monte di Vico, it would by no 
means follow that that was the place occupied by the Eretrians 
and Chalcidians when they established the first factory on the 
island, nor that the chief town of Ischia during the seventh, sixth, 
and fifth centuries was located there. Lacco is important merely 
from its proximity to the sea, and its chief source of income is from 
fishing and from the neighboring tonnara. Monte di Vico could 


t Beloch, Campanien, p. 208: “Dass die Héhe im Alterthum ummauert war, 
zeigt die oben angefiihrte Inschrift;” cf. Plan VII. If we accept the map of Beloch, 
the city would have covered an area not much larger than that of Forio, which today 
has a population of about 7,000, about one-third that of the island. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 199 


be of value for strategical reasons only. The main industries 
of the islands are centered elsewhere. To give an example of this, 
even to the present day the shore of Casamicciola is termed Marina 
delle allumiere on account of the alum produced in the region below 
Epomeus.' If it is true that the Chalcidians and the Eretrians of 
Euboea became rich through the fertility of the soil (80 evxapzriav) 
and the gold mines (6a ta@ ypuceia), or better the manufacturing 
of clay vessels (as we have suggested by proposing the correction 
of the ypuoeta of Strabo to xuTpeta), it is evident that the principal 
seat of these colonists must be sought, not at Lacco, but in the 
most fertile portion of the island, among the hills which extend 
from the harbor of Ischia to Casamicciola. There even today 
are extracted alum and clay, and there are the most productive of 
the hot springs. The severe volcanic upheavals which have from 
time to time modified the island to a great extent, and the convul- 
sions which have more or less transformed the hilly region where 
Casamicciola is situated, have probably destroyed all traces of 
the earliest Euboeic factories. 

Of the nature of such disturbances we have a slight indication 
in the traces which are still visible of the catastrophe of 1883. 
The convulsions recorded by Timaeus were probably of such 
colossal magnitude that those of modern times would seem rela- 
tively unimportant. Thus Pliny records a really remarkable 
earthquake which swallowed an entire city and left a lake in its 
place. This at once causes us to think of the circular lake near 
the shore of Ischia, which in modern times has been joined with the 
' sea and is known as the Porto d’Ischia.? It is quite within the 
bounds of possibility that this sunken city should be identified with 
the earliest Chalcidian city of Pithecusa. It is also possible that 
it existed elsewhere, and not near Casamicciola.3 The impossi- 

1 See de Siano, op. cit., p. 22. 

2 Cf. Plin. N. H. ii. 203. This is also the opinion of Fuchs, op. cit., p. 45. 


3 According to Timaeus (apud Strab. v, p. 248C.), a little before his time 
(about 345 B. Cc.) Epomeus, or better, Epopeus, forced toward the sea all of the region 
between it and the water’s edge (i. e., the hills of Casamicciola). This was reduced 
to cinders and spread over the sea for a distance of three stades, and then thrown 
back on the island. The noise was so terrifying that the inhabitants of the opposite 


200 ANCIENT ITALY 


bility of deciding this question is due, among other things, to the 
fact that, according to the inscriptions, the famous mineral springs, 
for which the island was famous in antiquity, should be sought 
in the southern portion near Nitrioli. At the present time the 
springs are less numerous and conspicuous in that region, while 
they abound on the side toward Casamicciola, where the eruptions 
of hot water mentioned by the ancients certainly occurred. It is 
evident, however, that the numerous volcanic convulsions which 
have disturbed that region are sufficient to account for the absence 
of inscriptions, which must once have been found there in no less 
quantity than at Nitrioli.‘ Nevertheless, in spite of these con- 
vulsions, it may be that excavations undertaken by some learned 
and patient archaeologist will succeed in finding the remains of the 
earliest Greek habitations. If this is no longer possible, one should 
at least undertake the exploration of Monte di Vico, and still more, 


coast fled into the interior. Cf. also the convulsions recorded by Pliny N. H. ii. 
203. 4: “mox in his [i. e., at Pithecussae] montem Epopon, cum repente flamma 
ex eo emicuisset, campestri aequatum planitiae. in eadem et oppidum haustum 
profundo, alioque motu terrae stagnum emersisse et alio provolutis montibus 
insulam extitisse Prochytam.’”? Compared with such convulsions, the current 
termed Arso or Cremate, which in 1302 laid waste for two months the region between 
the modern village of Ischia and Porto d’ Ischia, would seem as nothing. Whether 
the region of Arso was inhabited in Greek and Roman times we have no means of 
establishing. It is not improbable, and even quite possible, that in antiquity, 
just as in modern times, a village existed at the foot of the Castle of Ischia. 


t The inscriptions CIL, X, 6786, 6789, 6790, allude to Apollo and the Nitrodes. 
Possibly the same locality is referred to by other inscriptions, such as 6787, 6788, 
etc. Other inscriptions come from the southern region of the island, as 6793 
(Citara), 6801 (Forio), 6802 (unless urban), 6803, 6804, 6805 (Lacco Ameno), in 
addition to the one from Monte di Vico (Kaibel, IGSI, 894). The only Greek 
inscription is not very ancient, and is attributed vaguely to the neighborhood of 
Casamicciola: ‘HNlw Mlépg duxyrw (Kaibel, 891). 

Although the waters of Nitrioli, as also those of Olmitello, have the reputation 
of aiding diseases of the bladder (see Chevalley de Rivaz, op: cit., p. 165), the most 
efficient waters for such ailments, as likewise for gravel, are found to the north, at 
Ischia, Pantano, Gurgitello, Cappone, Acqua della Riva, etc. (See Chevalley de 
Rivaz, op. cit., pp. 63, 70, 96, 112, 129.) It is worthy of note that the ancients, in 
speaking of the medicinal qualities of the waters of Ischia, allude merely to their 
efficacy in curing gravel (Strab. v, p. 248C.; Plin. N. H. xxxi. 9). It seems 
natural to suppose that they meant the waters of the last-named localities rather than 
those of Nitrioli, even though Nitrioli alone is mentioned in the ancient inscriptions. 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 201 


of the necropolis of the Valle di S. Montano below, where there are 
said to exist numerous fragments of pottery and traces of human 
habitations. Such researches would have the result of establishing 
the origin of the city situated above Lacco, of which even the name 
bears witness to Greek origin.* By investigations of this nature 
it may be possible to determine whether the designation of md0us 
“EAAnv& given to the city of Pithecussa by Pseudo-Scylax belongs 
to Monte di Vico, and whether Ovid was alluding to this height 
or to the Castle of Ischia when he recorded the “‘sterilique locatas 
colle Pithecusas.” 


IV 


Before leaving the subject of Ischia, let us consider briefly the 
relations which the island may have had with the shores of Africa. 
Pseudo-Scylax, in several passages which, so far as I know, have 
not as yet been brought into connection with our subject, in describ- 
ing the coast and islands near Carthage mentions an island termed 
Pontia, and a city called Pithecusa which had a small island facing 
it. On the island was a city called Euboea.? This naturally brings 
to mind Euboean Pithecusa or Ischia and the Pontine Islands, and 
leads to the question whether the mention of these three names in 
connection with the African coast is merely casual or is due to 
ethnographic reasons, or to ancient commercial and maritime 
relations. 

To prevent us from regarding as merely fortuitous the perfect 
resemblance between the three names, we may mention the fact 
that at Naples a quarter, or rather a block, of houses had a name 
(Megaris) recalling a quarter of Carthage, and that this same 

t For example, Adxxoe by the Sea of Marmora (Ptol. iv. 5. 20) and the Syra- 
cusan harbor termed Adxxwos (Diod. xiv. 7) derived their names from Ad«xkos 
(=“‘lake”’, “basin’’). 

2 Pseud.-Scyl. 111: @rewe 5) vyncla év rH ‘Epuale adxpg Tovrla vijoos xal 
Kéovpos . . . . [eOnxovoat kal Acuhy Kar’ évavrlov air&v Kal vioos kal words év TH 
vicw Evo. Shortly afterward (112) is recorded a Ilovriwy rémos kal wérus. 
We have not here to deal with the African cities conquered by Agathocles and 
termed Pithecussae, since Diodorus (xx. 58. 3) states expressly that this was the 


Greek version of the indigenous names, which had been given these cities because 
of the monkeys to which the inhabitants rendered divine honors. 


202 ANCIENT ITALY 


name in a slightly different form (Megalia) appears also at 
Sinuessa.* 

Our knowledge of the maritime and political relations existing 
between Carthage and the peoples of Magna Graecia and Cam- 
pania is very fragmentary. This much is certain, however, that 
there was no bay or gulf of the Mediterranean which the Cartha- 
ginians had left unexplored, and from which, if necessary, they 
had not drawn mercenary forces for their military operations. To 
cite a single example, Punicum, near Caere, seems to preserve 
traces of an ancient landing-place of this people. That the Greeks 
acted somewhat similarly is natural. Campanian mercenaries 
were long in the service of Carthage, and numerous places on 
the African coast which were subject to Carthage testify by their 
Greek names to intercourse with Sicily and other Greek countries.? 
Toward the end of the Roman Republic a group of Campanians, 
and particularly some from Nocera and the neighboring Sorrentine 
peninsula, established themselves on the coast of Numidia, in the 
territory of Cirta, where in later times the names of the towns 
recalled the native land of their founders. The reasons which led 
the inhabitants of the Sorrentine peninsula and the adjacent locali- 
ties to turn toward the African coast were possibly the same as 


t See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 476, n. 2. 

2 Cf. Herod. vii. 165; Diod. v. 17. 4; xiii. 80, for the Carthaginian mercen- 
aries from Sardinia, Liguria, and the Baleares; Diod. xiii. 44. 62. 5, for the Cam- 
panian mercenaries. Cf. also the various localities of the African coast termed 
Nedwodis and subject to Carthage, and also Clypea or Aspis. The CJL, VIII, 
p. 197, is probably wrong in denying the statement of Solinus (27. 8) that ‘“Sicca 
Veneria” owed its origin to the Siculi who had there transplanted the cult of Venus 
Erycina. 

3 Cf. Mommsen, ad CIL, VIII, p. 618. Veneria Rusicade, Mileu Sarnensis 
and Minervia Chullu derive their names from Pompeii, from the’ A@jvaiov of Punta 
della Campanella, and from the river Sarno. The cause of these appellations was 
the Nuceran P. Sittius and his companions. It was by no means accidental, there- 
fore, that at Veneria Rusicade was found an inscription recording the genius of the 
Colonia Augusta Puteolana (CJL, VIII, 7959), and we are not surprised that a 
“‘Napolitanus” (sic!) from Africa is called Blossius (CIL, I, 106), a purely 
Campanian name. These facts explain also the tractus Campaniae which figures 
in African inscriptions (CIL, VIII, 18909) or in those having reference to Africa 
(CIL, X, 6081). 


EARLY HISTORY OF ISCHIA 203 


those which led the inhabitants of Amalfi in mediaeval times to 
visit so many maritime regions, and which still lead the natives of 
neighboring Agerola to seek their fortune in far-distant lands 
across the sea. It was relations of this nature, finally, which gave 
life to the legend of S. Restituta, the patroness of Ischia. The 
story goes that her body was miraculously borne to Lacco Ameno 
from the shores of northern Africa. 

That which took place at the end of the first century B. Cc. may 
also have occurred in Greek times, and it is quite possible that the 
industrious Chalcidians of Campania, who were just as addicted 
to commerce as the Carthaginians, should have frequented the 
African shores and visited certain landing-places there, much as 
did the Carthaginians along the coast of Italy.' 

However, the scarcity, or rather the almost total lack, of material 
warns us not to indulge in bold and fruitless hypotheses, and we 
shall therefore refrain from investigating the subject from ethno-. 
graphical and commercial points of view. For the moment it will 
suffice to have alluded to a problem which seems well worth formu- 
lating, even though, in the present state of our knowledge, a satis- 
factory solution does not seem possible.? 

t A confirmation of the close relations between the African and Italian shores 
is found in the Punic-Etruscan treaty mentioned by Aristotle, to which may now 
be added the Etruscan inscription found at Carthage. Aside from the name 
“‘Pontia,”’ which appears twice on the African coast, it is possible that the Etruscan 
Rusellae is connected with such interrelations. It has no parallel among Italic 
names, but reminds one of various African localities commencing with Rus= 
“head;” e. g., Rusguniae, Rusicade, Rusucurium, Ruspina. 

2 After long search, my friend, Professor E. Martini, head librarian of the 
National Library of Naples, has succeeded in finding for me a copy of the work of 
A. Giuochi, Ischia dalla sua origine fino ai nostri giornt (Rome, 1884, Armanni; 
quoted by Beloch, Campanien Erginzungen, p. 468). It contains nothing new on 


our subject. It will suffice to note that, like preceding writers, Giuochi places 
(p. 7) the Syracusan colony of Hiero at Lacco and at Forio. 


XVII 
NAPLES AND ISCHIA AT THE TIME OF SULLA 


According to the generally accepted opinion, when Naples 
came into the hands of the Romans in 326 B.c., she lost posses- 
sion of the island of Ischia. To this fact are supposed to refer 
the words of Strabo, who, after stating that the Neapolitans 
had occupied Ischia after the departure of Hiero, and that they 
also owned Capri, adds that at some period they lost Ischia in 
war and later received it again from Augustus in exchange for 
Capri. It seems to me, however, that this opinion, which even 
Mommsen, among others, accepts, is opposed by certain important 
arguments which, so far as I know, have hitherto escaped 
observation. 

In the first place, if the Romans took Ischia from Naples in 326, 
it seems very strange that, founding a maritime colony in 313, she 
should have placed it on the island of Pontia, and should not,as did 
Hiero about 474, have occupied Ischia instead, which was infinitely 
superior from a strategic standpoint. If in 313 the Romans had 
really been masters of Ischia, a natural stronghold, easy to defend 
and possessing enough arable land to support a modest colony, they 
certainly would not have selected Pontia, which is smaller, less 
accessible, and strategically less important. Ischia, moreover, 
would have been a much more useful base for waging war against 
the Samnites who inhabited the region east of the gulf. In 310, 
for example, after the founding of Pontia, the Romans were worsted 
in a demonstration which they made along the shores of Nucera 
and Pompeii.?. Moreover, it is seen from the texts that about 326 
B. Cc. the Samnites of the Gulf of Naples were accustomed to lay 
waste the coast of Latium by maritime incursions, which could 


t Strab. v, p. 248 C.; cf. Mommsen, CIL, X, p. 679. Beloch, in the supple- 
ment to the second edition of his Campanien (p. 447), abandons the opinion of 
Mommsen, as advanced on p. 205 of the first edition. 

2 Liv. ix. 38. 

205 


206 ANCIENT ITALY 


have been more easily guarded against and checked by the possession 
of Ischia.* 

If, therefore, to guard against the invasions of the Samnites, of 
Agathocles, and of the Carthaginians,? the Romans planted a 
maritime colony of Pontiae and not of Pithecusae, the reason lies in 
the fact that Pithecusae or Ischia had not yet become their property, 
but had remained in the possession of the Neapolitans. It is by 
admitting that in 326 Naples had not lost the fertile island which 
was of such importance for her own maritime commerce, that one 
fully understands the reference to the foedus aequum which Rome 
contracted with Naples,? a city which until 172 B.c. at least 
continued to be the naval center of the Romans, or, more exactly, 
the most important city of the allied naval forces on the Tyrrhenian 
coast.* 

If, however, in 326 B. c. Naples was still in possession of Ischia, 
it remains to discover at what time she lost the island, and to 
what period we should refer the war recorded by Strabo, as a 
result of which Naples was deprived of what was one of the gems, 
and probably the most precious gem, of her small colonial dominion. 
It seems to me that the date may with sufficient probability be 
placed in 82 B. c., the time when the followers of Sulla were enabled 
through treachery to penetrate into Naples by night, and, after 
slaughtering the majority of the citizens and putting the rest to 
flight, to take possession of the war triremes.5 

During the social and civil wars the various cities of Cam- 
pania, and also those of other regions of Italy, saw the necessity of 

t To deceive the Samnite leader who occupied Palaeopolis, Nymphius, one of 
the two praetors of Naples, asked that he “‘sineret se classe circumvehi ad Romanum 
agrum, non oram maris sed ipsi urbi propinqua loca depopulaturum” (Liv. viii. 
26. 1); cf. Strab. v, p. 232 C., and my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 409, n. I. 

2 For the importance of the maritime colony of Pontia in regard to the relations 
of Rome with Carthage and with Agathocles, see below, pp. 290 f. 

3 See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 485. 

4 Polyb. i. 20. 14; Liv. xxxv. 16. 3; xxxvi. 42.1; xlii. 20. 3; xlvili. 6.9. For 
a discussion of the maritime power of Naples see below, chap. xix. 

5 App. B.C. i. 89: és re Néav wbdiw éx mpodoclas vuxrds Erepor TH ZudAdelwy 


écehObvres Exrevavy Aravras xwpls drXlywv diapvydvrwv Kal Tas Tpijpes THs mbdrAews 
édaBov, 


NAPLES AND ISCHIA AT TIME OF SULLA 207 


siding either with the Italians or with Rome, or else with Sulla, or 
with the leaders of the party of Marius. Sulla was just as liberal 
in rewarding the cities which opened their gates to him as he was 
severe in punishing his adversaries. For that reason it is clear 
that Naples could not have averted from herself the same evils 
which befell Stabiae and Nola in Campania, and elsewhere Norba 
and Praeneste. The territory of Nola was given to the soldiers of 
Sulla, Pompeii received a Sullan colony, the territory of Calatia 
was united to that of Capua, the colony of Urbana was created 
in the Falernian territory, and that of Stabiae was given to Nuceria 
Alfaterna, one of the cities friendly to Sulla. In like manner 
Naples paid for her hatred of the Sullan party with the dispersion 
and slaughter of her citizens, with the loss of her ships of war, and 
finally, as it seems to me, with the confiscation of the better portion 
of her territory.* 

We are ignorant of the fortunes of Naples during the period 
between the invasion of Hannibal and the social wars, but from 
the fact that many of her citizens unwillingly accepted Roman 
citizenship,? and considering that in 82 B. c. the majority of them 
had been put to death, we naturally come to the conclusion that, 
as we should expect in a city given over to maritime commerce, the 
democratic party was the more powerful. This conclusion is 
strengthened by the fact that at Naples, which differed from other 
cities that preserved for a long period an aristocratic constitution, 
the highest political authority was concentrated, not in the hands of 
the archon, who still existed, though in a subordinate position, but 

t For Pompeii, Nola, Capua, Nuceria, and Urbana, see the passages collected 
by Mommsen, CIL, X, pp. 89, 366, 142, 144, 460; for Stabiae see Mommsen, 7bid., 
p. 84; cf. Beloch, Campanien, p. 248. For Calatia or Caiatia, see Lib. col, s.v, 
p. 232, Lach ; cf. Mommsen, CIL, X, p. 444. 

In the inscription which Sulla is said to have had placed on his tomb was said: 
as otre rév dlidwy tis adrov eb rody otre Tav éxOpv KaxGs brepBddero (Plut. 
Syll. 38). By this Sulla wished one to have in mind the benefits or punishments 


with which he rewarded or afflicted, not so much his particular friends or enemies, 
as the cities or states which either favored or opposed him. 

2 Cic. Pro Balbo 8. 21: “in quo magna contentio Heracliensium et Neapoli- 
tanorum fuit, cum magna pars in eis civitatibus foederis sui libertatem ante- 
ferret.” 


208 ANCIENT ITALY 


rather in the Sxjapyos, a democratic magistrate corresponding to 
the tribune of the plebs.* 

From the above it results that in 90 B. c. the Julian law which 
granted to Naples Roman citizenship in reality deprived her of the 
independence derived from the jfoedus aequum, although it did 
not reduce her to the level of one of the numerous municipia 
civium Romanorum. ‘The very fact that Naples was able to pre- 
serve her war triremes for eight years longer, or until 82 B.c., 
shows that she was granted some favors. Even after the bloody 
devastation and repression of Sulla, Naples still preserved note- 
worthy traces of her former autonomy, and down to the Augustan 
age or even later made use of the Greek language in official 
documents. 

With the sacking of Naples and the slaughter of her inhabitants 
seems to be connected the establishing of the villa of Lucullus, 
which occupied the entire hill of Pizzofalcone and the Castel 
dell’ Uovo. It was easy for Lucullus, the intimate friend of 
Sulla, to appropriate for his magnificent villa the region where 
Rhodian Parthenope or Palaeopolis had been situated, since this 
was destroyed during the war of 82 B.c.?, An analogous fate 
again befell the hill of Pizzofalcone in go2 A. D., when Ibrahim- 
ibn-Ahmed passed the Faro and threatened even the coast of 
Campania. Gregory, the consul of Naples, together with the 
bishop, Stephen, and others in power, decided to dismantle the 
Lucullan fortress, and for five days in September and October of 
that year the Neapolitans themselves leveled the houses of that 
pleasant region, and transferred its inhabitants within the walls 
of the city to the east.s 

It is true, however, that the most splendid period in the history 

t This explains the singular fact that at Naples Titus and Hadrian, instead of 
filling the office of archon, although this office endured, accepted that of demarch. 
See below, chap. xix. 

2 Concerning the existence of Parthenope or Palaeopolis at Pizzofalcone, I 


accept the view of Capasso, which seems to have been corroborated by new argu- 
ments and considerations. See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 470 ff. 


3 Joh. Diac. Acta transl., n. 9S; Sever. in Capasso, Monum., I, pp. 291 ff.; 
cf. Schipa, Storia del ducato napolitano (Naples, 1895), pp. 218 ff. 


NAPLES AND ISCHIA AT TIME OF SULLA 209 


of the rich Roman villas which extended from Pizzofalcone to 
Posilipo and Pozzuoli, seems to coincide with the overthrow of 
Neapolitan autonomy. The decadence of Naples was closely 
connected with the increasing prosperity of Pozzuoli, just as the 
growth of Parthenope had been with the decay of Cumae."_ Cer- 
tainly Puteoli was the first to benefit by the destruction of the 
Neapolitan fleet in 82 B.c. Although about 172 B. c. Naples had 
been the most important of the Tyrrhenian maritime cities, after 
82 B.c. the region which seemed best adapted for the Roman 
arsenal was the strip of coast between Puteoli and Misenum. 
This condition of affairs was suggested, or rather, necessitated, 
by the nature of the region; and even today, after so many cen- 
turies, the naval workshops which have been established near 
Pozzuoli will have the effect of rendering useless the Neapolitan 
arsenal. 

Of the labors undertaken for transforming the lakes near Baiae, 
and for giving them gates and a deeper approach, there is no men- 
tion until after the peace of Misenum in 39 B. c., when the incur- 
sions and opposition of Sextus Pompeius, the master of Sicily, 
obliged the Romans to readopt the maritime policy which in 313 
had led to the founding of Pontia. That between 82 and 39 there 
is no mention of Pozzuoli and of a Roman arsenal on the coast of 
Campania is easily explained by the fact that during that period 
Rome neglected more than ever all maritime precautions. It was 
for this reason that about 66 B. Cc. pirates were enabled with impu- 
nity to coast along and lay waste the shores of Campania and 
Latium as far as Ostia, and to take numerous prisoners at Gaeta 
and Misenum.? 

From still another circumstance, though only indirectly, we 
learn that up to 82 the destruction of Naples was of advantage to 
Pozzuoli. It was at Pozzuoli that Sulla passed the last months of 
his life, after he had given up the dictatorship, and even a few days 

t Lutat. apud Philarg. In Verg. ecl. iv. 564=fr.2 P. For the relations between 
the history of Naples and that of Pozzuoli see my “La missione civile e politica di 
Napoli nell’ antichita,” in the Neapolitan periodical Flegrea, February, 1900. 

2 Cic. De Imp. Gn. Pomp. 12. 33. 


210 ANCIENT ITALY 


before his death he succeeded in subduing a serious rebellion and 
in giving the city new laws. Pozzuoli was, however, among the 
cities preferred by Sulla, and possibly, like Brindisi, among those 
which he benefited. And that the city was really dear to him we 
know from the fact that his death was caused by his having taken 
the proper aedilian and financial administration of the colony too 
much to heart. We are told, in fact, that he vomited blood in a 
fit of rage brought on because Granius or Gavius, the supreme 
magistrate, had not kept his promise of restoring the money 
necessary for the reconstruction of the Capitolium of the city. 
Thus Sulla was at the same time the enemy of Naples and the 
benefactor of her rival, Puteoli.? 

Following the oligarchical reaction, the various cities of Cam- 
pania which had been injured by Sulla again raised their heads. 
Capua, for example, despite the conservative party, in 63 B.C. 
received back the colony which had been planted in 83, and 
obtained the territory of the colony Urbana. To Naples, however, 
the death of the dread dictator did not bring the same advantages, 
or at least did not restore her to her former condition. Before she 
could recover the fertile island of Ischia, it was necessary to await 
the munificence of Augustus, who exchanged it for the pleasant 
little island of Capri, which the Neapolitans still owned. At that 
time, however, the maritime career of Naples was at an end, 
and for her at least, neither Ischia nor Capri was of the slightest 
strategic importance. 

Thanks to the triumph of the oligarchic party and to the wrath 
of Sulla, Naples suddenly fell from the important position which 
she had occupied since the Second Punic War. Up to about 172 


t Plut. Syll. 37. 

2 Val. Max. viii. 3. 8. Possibly the two inscriptions from the neighborhood of 
Pozzuoli recording a centuria Cornelia have something to do with the reorganization 
of the colony by Sulla. See CIL, X, 1874; and cf. the inscription of L. Aurelius 
Pylades, NV. S., 1888, p. 237=Ihm, Add. ad CIL, X. 369. 


3 I refrain from discussing the internal condition of Naples at the time of Pom- 
pey and Sulla. From Cic. Ad Aftic. vii. 2.5; 4.2; 13.1; cf. Pro Coelio 23, we 
may conclude that the aristocratic party, having become powerful at Naples, 
favored the policy of Pompey and combated that of Caesar. 


NAPLES AND ISCHIA AT TIME OF SULLA O11 


Naples had been the principal maritime and military arsenal of 
the Romans. With Sulla ended a glorious period in the life of 
Naples, and there commenced what has ever since been one of the 
two principal aspects of our civic greatness. lLucullus, the confi- 
dant of Sulla, for the purpose of creating a villa, took for himself 
alone the region of Pizzofalcone, which was perhaps the most 
healthful as well as the most beautiful on the gulf. Even today 
after so many centuries, we still find here a few dwellings belonging 
to the well-to-do, and the population in general seems much more 
scattered than is the case in the other quarters of the city. The 
example of Lucullus was soon followed by others, and the adjoining 
regions as far as Posilipo and Baiae were given up to the villas of 
the rich and powerful few. Thanks to Sulla, and to the policy of 
Caesar, which in this respect followed much the same course, 
Naples, whose fleet had assisted the Romans in their conquest of 
Sicily and subjugation of Carthage and the East, became merely a 
pleasant place of sojourn." 

Just as that which is good is rarely dissociated from evil, so evil 
brings with it to a greater or less degree something of good. In 
the case of Naples, the misfortunes which befell her at the time of 
Sulla obliged her more than ever to cultivate music and the arts, 
and even more than in the past, poets, artists, and philosophers 
flocked thither from every direction. The Neapolitan philosopher 
Staseas became the leader of the Peripatetics;? the Nycaean Par- 
thenius was greatly admired for the passion displayed in his 
love-stories; and finally it was at Naples that Parthenius educated 
the greatest and most delicate of Latin poets: 

Illo Vergilium me tempore dulcis alebat 
Parthenope studiis florentem ignobilis oti.3 

t Ovid. Metam. xv. 711. 

2 Cic. De Orat. i. 104; De Fin. v. 8; 75. 

3 Verg. Georg. iv. 563 f. 


XVIII 
THE TEMPLE OF THE SIRENS NEAR SORRENTO 


The Notizie degli Scavi makes no mention of certain discoveries 
made on the Sorrentine peninsula about 1896, at the time when the 
new road leading to the harbor of Massa Lubrense was constructed. 
The following information was secured by me on the spot itself, 
on the slope of the ridge which from the west overlooks the 
portion of the village lying on the shore. There, just behind some 
ancient ruins in which are recognizable traces of a church, in the 
district termed Fontanella, and on the estate of Canon Luigi Rocco, a 
contractor by the name of Caselli brought to light various fragments 
of columns and statues, which were soon dispersed, some be- 
ing taken to Sorrento, some to Rome, and possibly some else- 
where.? : 

The architectural fragments and pieces of statues which I saw 
at Sorrento, and some of which may still be seen at the Hotel Vic- 
toria, belong to the Roman period. It was also rumored that 
traces of rosso antico and columns of marble had been found, but 
this I was unable to verify. 

From this it is clear that at the point in question, situated on the 
bay between Cape Corno and Cape Massa, the traces of an ancient 
temple had been discovered. Among the objects found I wish to 
direct special attention to a fragment of a head in the archaic 
style, which was accidentally discovered by me in the neighborhood 
during the course of my investigations for the purpose of locating 
the site of the temple of the Sirens. 

From well-known passages in Pseudo-Acistotle, Strabo, and 
Stephen of Byzantium, who derived their information from 
Timaeus, we learn that the temple of the Sirens was greatly 
venerated by those dwelling in the vicinity, and that it contained 


t For this topographical information thanks are due to Sig. Almerico Gar- 
giulo, of Sorrento, who kindly accompanied me on my excursions, and to Sig. Fr. 
Sav. Astarita, of Massa Lubrense. 


213 


214 ANCIENT ITALY 


ancient offerings which had been presented by the inhabitants of 
the place." 

Every student of Neapolitan history knows how many opinions 
have been advanced concerning the site of this famous temple, 
from which, according to some, the name of Sorrento itself was 
derived. Among the best 
known of modern inves- 
tigators of Sorrentine to- 
pography is Capasso, who 







WA Ga— 


Serrent@ placed the temple be- 

tween Massa Lubrense 

| PENINSOLA and the present Sorrento. 

a aoe The more generally ac- 
27) Labrense cepted opinion, however, 

DI is that of Beloch, who 


holds that this edifice 
should be sought near the 
marina of Massa, where 
todayis located the church 
of Santa Maria della Lob- 
bra, a name in which he 
rightly recognizes a deri- 
vation from the Latin de- 
Pta.di Campanella lubrum.?_ The discovery 
Fic. 11.—Peninsula of Sorrento. of the head would seem 
to favor this theory. 

According to Beloch, the church of S. Maria della Lobbra, 
which is situated below the village of Massa Lubrense and above 
its marina or landing-place, is built over an ancient temple. I 


BORRENTO 





1 Strab. i, p. 22 C.; v, p. 247C.: é« dé rod mpds Zuppevrdv pépous iepdv re 
delkvuTar kal dva@juara madad TiudvTwy Tv mryolov [rdv] rérov. Steph. Byz., 
s. V.: Leipyvovecar kal vews abr@v pura cal riu@vra xa’ vrepBodrynv. That 
the statements in these two passages are derived from Timaeus is shown by Pseudo- 


Arist. De mir. ausc. 103: Kal veds abr&v tpura, cal tiu@vrar Kad’ drepBodhv 
bd TOv wepiolkwy Odorars Emripends. 


2 Capasso, Memorie storiche archeologiche della Penisola Sorrentina (Naples, 
1846); Beloch, Campanien, p. 276. 


PLATE. VI 





ARCHAIC HEAD FROM TEMPLE OF THE SIRENS 


TEMPLE OF THE SIRENS NEAR SORRENTO 215 


shall not here discuss this theory, but merely note that, according 
to the authorities of the clurch—or of the delubrum—it has occu- 
pied its present site since the sixteenth century only, while before 
that time it was situated in the region termed Fontanella, beside 
the ruins which produced the fragments described above. 

It is my intention merely to present a few topographical data, 
and not to discuss the head in question from an artistic standpoint. 
I shall leave it to more competent students of ancient statuary to 
discover whether it is a work of the sixth or of the beginning of the 
fifth century B. c., or whether it is an ancient copy of a work of that 
period. Certain of my colleagues, whom I have questioned, have 
not been entirely agreed in this regard. For my own part I wish 
to note that, even in case the fragment is a copy of an ancient 
monument, aside from the fact that it is not made of Italian marble, 
it is worthy of consideration that it comes from a place which from 
other indications seems to have been the site of the famous temple 
of the Sirens, in which there existed the offerings (ava@npata) 
which already seemed ancient (7raXara) to a historian of the end of 
the fourth or the beginning of the third century. 

The cult of the Sirens was naturally connected with the diffi- 
culties experienced in navigating the straits between Capri and the 
mainland—difficulties which are even referred to by Italian 
writers of the Middle Ages. As a result of this, the entire mountain 
above Sorrento on the side toward the sea, and the islands which 
were also called ‘‘of the Sirens,’’ were held as sacred to these 
divinities. ‘The modern name /i Galli for the “Islands of the 
Sirens” causes one to think of the opinion held by the ancients 
that the Sirens had the form of birds." 

It is readily understood that those who feared shipwreck, or 
who had been rescued from such a fate, should have held in great 
honor those whom they believed to be the tutelary divinities of 
these dangerous places; and if we examine closely the configuration 
of Capo della Campanella and of the steep precipices near by, we 

t For the mons Sirenianus see Lib. col. (ed. Lachmann), p. 237; for the 


opinion that the Sirens had the form of birds, see Schander apud Bulle in the 
Strena Helbigiana, pp. 31 ff. 


216 ANCIENT ITALY 


see that the first harbor which could offer any degree of security - 
to the mariner was the little gulf between Cape Corno and Cape 
Massa. 

From the writings of Serafino Montorio' concerning the cults 
of southern Italy we learn that at the festival of S. Maria della 
Lobbra, which was originally held, not at the actual church, but at 
the maritime region termed Fontanella near Cape Corno, rites 
were performed suggestive of those which the ancients must have 
accorded the Sirens. Moreover, the cult of S. Maria della Lobbra 
was very important in that region in the past, and the sailors who 
departed from the present landing-place of Massa Lubrense, on 
arriving at Cape Corno saluted the little church “with the firing 
of mortars and arquebusses,” and were answered “by the sound of 
the bells of the church.” In addition I was informed that traces 
of this cult are still preserved, and that here, just as elsewhere 
under similar circumstances, an annual religious festival is cele- 
brated by the seashore, at the place where the Christian church is 
said to have formerly stood. 

I do not wish to maintain that we have in this an absolute proof 
of the persistence of the pagan cult of the Sirens. But at any 
rate, if the fragment really belongs to the end of the sixth or the 
beginning of the fifth century, it forms an additional argument in 
favor of the presumption that the temple of the Sirens stood on the 
shore below the present village of Massa Lubrense, and justifies 
our belief that the problem regarding the location of the temple 
has been solved.? 

t Zodiaco di Maria (1713), p. 199. The mutilated copy at my disposal does 
not give the place of publication. 


2The marble fragment was presented by me to the National Museum of 
Naples, of which I had the honor of being in charge. It is now the first monument 
to the right as one enters the gallery devoted to works of the archaic and archaistic 
periods. 


XIX 


THE CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA AND THE A@H- 
NAION OF PUNTA DELLA CAMPANELLA 


In 1892 was published for the first time the following inscription 


from Naples:* 
AOMITIA KAAAICT (sic) 


H AOHNAC : IHPHA (sic) 
CIKEAHC 
YTO CYNKAHTO (sic) 
AHMOCIA - TENOMENH 

The inscription is incised on the back of a still older funerary 
relief representing the customary scene of leave-taking, and having 
in addition the inscription TTAKKI HPAAAEQN, which, with its 
mixture of Greek and Samnite names, recalls the statement of 
Strabo regarding the Neapolitan fasti and the names of the 
demarchs.? 

The most noteworthy characteristic of the more recent of the 
two inscriptions is the mention of the cult of Athena Siciliana, a 
cult nowhere else recorded. This peculiarity has already caused 
several critics to study the monument, and to seek the occasion 
and time when the cult reached Naples; and, echoing the 
observations of Beloch in his excellent work on the Campania, 
it has been stated that the cult of Athena was foreign to Naples, 
and an attempt has been made to connect it with the relations 
which existed between Naples and Sicily at the time of the two 
Dionysii of Syracuse. 

t N.S. (1892), p. 202. Count L. de la Ville, to whom the preservation of the 
monument is due, confirms its Neapolitan origin. I am informed by Professor G. 
De Blasiis that it was found in the excavations made for widening the Vicolo 
Cavalcatoio outside of the Porta Capuana, where other sepulchral stones had 
already been found. 

2 Strab. v, p. 246C. Cf. the inscription in the Arch. stor. Nap., I (1874), 
p- 567; and CIL, X, p. 970. 

3 See E. Gabrici, in the Rendiconti d. R. Accad. di Arch. Lettere e Belle Arti 
(Naples, 1896), pp. 31 ff. 

217 


218 ANCIENT ITALY 


It does not seem to me that this reasoning is based on a secure 
foundation. Beloch deserves credit for having noted the impor- 
tance of the Neapolitan coins bearing the head of Athena, in better 
establishing the participation of the Athenians in the foundation of 
Naples;? but is far from the mark when he says that “they are 
rather imitations of the types of Athenian and Thurian coins than 
the expression of a special cult, of which not the slightest trace has 
elsewhere come down to us.”? Ancient writers are unanimous in 
declaring that the cult of the nymph Parthenope existed at Naples, 
although it finds mention on no epigraphic monument. With this 
I do not wish to deny the general correspondence existing between 
the special cults which flourished in different cities, and the fre- 
quence of inscriptions recording them. Thus, for example, it is 
by no means accidental, as we shall later have occasion to note, 
that in the entire tenth volume of the Corpus inscriptionum Lati- 
narum the cult of Minerva appears but twice, and in both instances 
in maritime cities. In the case of Naples, it seems to me that 
proof of this cult, which has hitherto been thought lacking, in 
reality is furnished by those same coins bearing the head of Athena, 
which teach us that the cult was imported from Attica. To this 
result we are also led by an examination of the coins of Cumae, 
Nola, Capua, Allifae, etc., which bear the head of Athena with her 
helmet decorated with olive leaves. All of these coins show rela- 
tions with Attic Naples, and indirectly with Athens.4 

The fact that Naples soon ceased to record the cult of Athena on 
her coins and confined herself to representing other deities,> together 
with the lack of inscriptions making mention of this goddess, can 


t Beloch, Campanien, p. 30. 2 Ibid., p. 50. 

3 CIL, X, 6102 (Formiae).and 7120 (Syracuse). For Scylacium, which was 
originally an Attic colony and had the epithet of Minervium, see Vell. i. 15; cf. 
CIEL, X, 103: 

4In certain coins from Cumae, Allifae, and Nola (see Garrucci, Le monete 
dell’ Italia antica, Plate 83, Fig. 28; Plate 88, Figs. 20,°22), in addition to the 
helmet of Athena crowned with olive of the Attic-Thurian type, one sees the Attic 
owl. Cf. Iust. xx. 1. 13: “iam Falisci Nolani, Abellani nonne Chalcidensium 
coloni sunt ?” 


5 Head, Hist. num., p. 33. 


PLATE. Vit 





A SICILIANA 


ATHEN 


LT OF 


INSCRIPTION REFERRING TO CU 


a 


_ 
- 
7 


_ 
a 
% 


rian 
Shing tT a) 
Sse 


oo A) ae 3 
bo eee 


_ a on : 
ee 
: —— 7 


coe 
ao 


— 


iz 


5 - 
ae 
De 
ae 
ae eee 
e ee 


+ 4 ae : 


: 7 he oe rer 
a _ a 
ie SL : 7 
_ pth. ee 


- 


_ 
fad 
eT ln 


ute 
ae 


; 
a >. 
a ee 


i 
oo 


mo 
Ee ae 


7 


/ : 2 Ta 7 
wha is, ees oe 
a 


ae a 2 
55) a au? ae > a : 
. = 


xe 
oa 
A 


7 “a - 


a 


ar 


7 


(on 
a 7 


rae ae 
ee a 





PLATE? Vilt 





FUNERARY RELIEF (FRONT OF SLAB SHOWN IN PLATE VII) 


eas 
72 ee 
nae ar 


od Ve Sik 
a al 


< f 
Dy 
an 


i>) 


a a 
re 


Fine 
oor vi 


a Pere 
Coe a 
i ee 
7 ae 


i a . 3 : 
sae 
i 


Betis 


ore ae 
ee, 





CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 219 


at the most lead one to suspect that the cult of Athena did not 
attain primary importance in that city. This supposition is 
strengthened by the fact that Pallas Athena is missing in the list 
of the di patrit which Statius makes for Naples. Ceres, Apollo, 
and the Dioscuri are the divinities recorded in this connection.’ 
We must, however, be careful not to lay too much stress on this 
argument, in spite of its plausibility, for Statius makes no allusion 
to the cult of Dionysus Hebon, although, as Beloch has brought 
out, from the evidence of literature he was the Geos érupavéotatos 
of Naples.? 

Whatever may be affirmed concerning the importance of the 
cult of Pallas Athena at Naples, it seems evident that the inscrip- 
tion recording the cult of Athena Siciliana has little or nothing to 
do with the coins representing the Attic Athena. The coins bear 
witness to the participation of the Athenians in the founding of 
Naples, as is attested by ancient writers. The inscription makes 
mention of a separate and distinct cult which may once have been 
grouped with another which was analogous and earlier, just as at 
Rome the earliest Juno cult was joined with that of Juno Regina 
on the Aventine, and that of Apollo in the campus Flaminius 
succeeded the other on the Palatine. In like manner the cult of 

t Stat. Sav. iv. 8. 45. 


2 See the references in Beloch, Campanien, p. 53. Beloch (ibid., p. 70), making 
use of the above quoted passage in Strabo supposes, with every probability, that 
the three decumani of Naples were named after Apollo (Via Anticaglia), Demeter 
(Via del Nilo),“and the Dioscuri (Via dei Tribunali). This, however, does not 
involve the exclusion of the cult of Athena. This cult was certainly present in 
Attic Thurii, and the streets (cardini and decumani) of that city were called Heraclaea, 
Aphrodisias, Olympia, Dionysias, Heroa, Thuria, and Thurina (Diod. xii. 10). It 
would seem that at both Naples and Thurii the Athenians wished to draw atten- 
tion from their political preponderance by concealing to a certain degree its external 
symbols. 

To this should be added that Statius, in the above-quoted passage from the 
Silvae, alludes to the dii patrit who are said to have come to Cumae and from 
Cumae to Naples: “quos .... litus ad Ausonium devexit Abantia Classis” 
(iv. 8. 45). Statius would therefore seem to allude to the older divinities who came 
with the first Greek colonists. The Attic colonization of Naples did not occur till 
about the middle of the fifth century B. c. 

3 Tim. apud Schol. vet. Lycoph. 732; Strab. v, p. 246C.; cf. Beloch, Griech. 
Geschichte, I, p. 505. 


220 ANCIENT ITALY 


Venus Murcia in the valley of the Circus came into being before 
the cult and temples of Venus Erycina at the Porta Collina and on 
the Capitoline. 

It now remains to discover from what Sicilian city the cult of 
Athena Siciliana came to Naples. The critic who first published 
the inscription naturally thought of the relations which existed 
between Syracuse and Naples, from the time of the second Athenian 
expedition against the Syracusan metropolis to that of the two 
Dionysii,? and of the mercenaries sent by the Chalcidians of Cam- 
pania.? He also lays stress on the presence in Naples of generals 
of Dionysius II, and alludes to the Neapolitan Nypsius, the leader 
of the mercenaries, who was in the service of that ruler. 

These observations are correct as far as they go, but they are 
not sufficiently comprehensive. The political expansion of Syra- 
cuse on Campanian soil dates from 47 B.c. at least, when 
Hiero, having conquered the Etruscans at Cumae, occupied the 
island of Ischia and left a garrison there.4 Again, about 453 B.C., 
there is mention of a Syracusan fleet which laid waste the coast 
of Etruria and pressed as far as Elba and Corsica.5_ And if, as we 
are told, the Neapolitans seized the fortress of Ischia after it was 
abandoned by Syracuse, this must have occurred, if not about 466 


t Gabrici, Joc. cit. 2 Diod. xiii. 44. 2. 

3 Gabrici evidently follows Beloch (Campanien, p. 32), who by a mere over- 
sight attributes fragment 127 of Timaeus=Athen. vi, p. 250a, to the time of the 
elder Dionysius. In two passages (249 /, e; 250 a) Athenaeus states that he was 
referring to the second (vewrepos) Dionysius. Moreover, it does not seem to me 
that we have sufficient data for affirming that this passage refers to an expedition 
against Naples in Campania. It may be that during the time when Dionysius was 
living at Locri and possessed only Ortygia, he alluded, with the words, ypduuara 
hutv, pn, Gvdpes Piro éwéudOn rapa Trav tyeubvwv trav eis Nedrokwy drooranéy- 
Twv, to one of the various operations by means of which his generals sought to 
gain the quarter termed Neapolis in Syracuse. There was, in fact, a period of 
anarchy in which each of the quarters of Syracuse, separated as they were the one 
from the other by regular walls, was in the hands of a separate leader. It is, how- 
ever, more natural to think that he referred to the Campanian Naples, on account 
of the brave Neapolitan Nypsius who was leader of the body of mercenaries at the 
time of Dionysius (Diod. xvi. 18. 1; 19. 1). It is also natural to suspect that a 
considerable number of these mercenaries were Campanians. 


4 Strab. v, p. 248 C. 5 Diod. xi. 88. 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 221 


B. C., at the latest about 427 or 415; that it to say, at the time when 
Syracuse was attacked by Athens and was gathering in all her 
forces, and when the Neapolitans sent mercenaries to the Atheni- 
ans, whom they regarded to a certain degree as fellow-countrymen.* 
From the fact that the elder Dionysius, in renewing the maritime 
undertakings of 453, pushed as far as the harbor of Caere and 
Corsica, it is probable that he continued the relations with Naples 
also.2, Without doubt that city had likewise relations with 
Agathocles of Syracuse, who drew from Samnium many brave 
mercenaries. 

The influence of Syracuse on the shores of southern Italy, 
Latium, and Etruria, extended over a period of about two cen- 
turies, from 474 to 289 B. C., and as a result these regions continued 
to be called Sicilia and their inhabitants Siculi. This I have 
elsewhere* shown for the Etruscans, Volscians, and Latins, and 
wish here merely to note that, in addition to the coast of Bruttium, 
the term “‘Siculian” was applied to the maritime cities and islands 
of Campania, such as Sinuessa, Procida, Cumae, and Palinurus or 
Buxentum.s 

It is natural to expect that as a result of this great maritime and 

t The words of Strabo (v, p. 248 C.), of weupOévres mapa ‘Iépwvos Tod Tupdvvov 
T&v Xvupakovelwy ééduwov 7d KaracKkevacbev br’ éavT&y retxos Kal THY vijcov. 
éredObvres 5¢ NeatoXtrat xaréoxov, indicate that there existed some connection 
between the Neapolitan occupation and the departure of the Syracusans. How- 
ever, about 474 B. Cc. Naples was possibly not yet in existence, in which case one 
must either think of an occupation on the part of Parthenope (Palaeopolis) about 
474-466 B. C., or else conclude that the text of Strabo is erroneous. The maritime 
prosperity of Syracuse about 453 would favor the opinion that Naples seized Ischia 
about 415-412, at the time when Athens was everywhere seeking allies, and those 
hostile to Syracuse, even among the Etruscans. See Thuc. vi. 88, 103; vii. 53. 

2 Strab. v, p. 226C.; and see below, p. 268. 

3 Diod. xx. 11; cf. below, p. 291. 

4 See below, chap. xx.; see also my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 5, 484, 618; 
and my Storia di Roma, I, 1, pp. 141 ff. For the Etruscans see, in addition, 
Lyd. De magistr., praef. 

5See Steph. Byz. IIlvéots, Hpoxtrn (cf. Ktun), Zivdecoa, termed wédes or 
vjgo. Lixedlas. Cf. Hor. Carm. iii. 4. 28: “nec Sicula Palinurus unda,” an 
expression which even the best commentators, such as Orelli and Kiessling, do not 


explain. Certainly the place was not termed Siculian from the Siculian Sea which 
extended from Sicily toward Greece and not Italy. 


222 : ANCIENT ITALY 


colonial expansion, there should have remained traces of cults 
in the cities visited by the Sicilian ships. In the case of Cam- 
pania I have elsewhere shown that the myth of the Thespiades at 
Cumae, and the cult in which were guarded the teeth of the Ery- 
manthian. boar, are explained by the relations which existed 
between Campania and the Dorians of Syracuse.* There is a pos- 
sibility, therefore, that the inscription referring to the presence 
of the cult of Athena Siciliana in Naples should be regarded as 
fresh evidence of the political influence of Syracuse on that city. 
It is also possible, on the other hand, that the inscription refers 
to a divinity honored in some neighboring region rather than in 
Naples itself. We have already seen that the absence of direct 
evidence regarding the cult of Athena in Naples has no decisive 
weight. Indirectly one might conclude from the coins that such a 
cult existed; but it was, at any rate, of the Attic-Thurian, and not 
of the Sicilian, Athena. 

An argument in favor of the view that the cult may have existed 
in the neighborhood is offered by the fact that a temple of Athena 
is known to have stood on the Punta della Campanella, near 
Sorrento and opposite the island of Capri. This temple, on 
account of which the promontory was given the name of ’A@nvauop, 
did not exist in very ancient times. It had to its south the Islands 
of the Sirens, and to the north the temple of these divinities near 
Sorrento; and certainly the cult of the Sirens was older than that of 
Athena. Moreover, we learn from ancient writers that the cult of 
Athena gradually grew in importance, at the expense of the earlier 
one of the Sirens, and that the very promunturium Minervae, or 
*A@nvacov, was at first apparently called Cape of the Sirens. It 
is impossible to say just when this substitution occurred, and at 
what time the cult of Athena became of greater importance than 
that of the Sirens, which, however, still continued to exist. At the 
time of Timacus, at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the 
third century, the latter cult was still in flourishing condition.? 

t See below, p. 292. 


2 The exact situation of the temple of Athena near the islands and temple of 
the Sirens is given by Strabo (i, p. 22 C.), who later (v, p. 247 C.) says of the Athe- 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 223 


This very substitution, however, and the fact that the mons 
Sirenianus was in part removed from the cult of the Sirens and 
given over to that of Athena, cause one to suspect that this worship 
of Athena was not indigenous, but had been imported from abroad. 
The maritime character of the goddess Athena, as we shall see 
shortly, would lead one to believe that she was borrowed from 
some city situated on the sea, either because the Punta della Cam- 
panella was provided with signals useful to navigators, or because 
it was of some military value." 

The Athenaeum was situated at the beginning of the route 
leading to Sicily, and from this fact alone it is easy to see how it 
could have become the center of the cult of Sicilian Athena, as 
mentioned in the inscription in question. The hypothesis, how- 
ever, receives still more definite support from a myth which is 
related in regard to Sorrento, and which has hitherto escaped the 
attention of those who have published the inscription. 

The story runs that Liparus, the son of Auson, proceeded 
from Sorrento to the island which takes its name from him, and 
that later, when an old man, he returned to his early home, where 
after his death his tomb was greatly venerated. His six grand- 
sons, children of his daughter Cyane and of Aeolus, are said to 
have become rulers over a large portion of the Sicilian and Italian 
coasts. JIocastus was master of the Italian peninsula as far as 
Regium; Pheraemon and Androcles, of the northern part of 
Sicily, from the strait to Lilybaeum; and Agathyrnus,’of that 
portion of the same region in which the city bearing his name 
arose. Xuthus became ruler of the territory of the Leontini, 
naeum: 6 tives Deipnvovscay dxporhpiov xadovo.wv. The words of Pliny (N. H. 
iii. 62), ““Surrentum cum promunturio Minervae, Sirenum quondam sede,” are 
understood when compared with the passage in the Liber coloniarum, p. 236: 
“‘Surrentum oppidum. ager eius ex occupatione tenebatur a Grecis ob consecrati- 
onem Minervae. sed et mons Sirenianus limitibus pro parte Augustianis est adsig- 
natus. ceterum in soluto remansit. iter populo debetur ubi Sirenae.” Compare 
the words of Strabo (v, p. 247 C.) where he speaks of the dva@juara wadaid, with 
those of Pseud.-Arist. De mir. ausc. 103 (98) (Timaeus); and Steph. Byz., s. v. 


Leipyvoveca, where he says that Tim@vrar xa’ vwepBoryy bxd Sy repiolxwy Ovolais 
émiped ds. 


1 See below, pp. 229 f. 


224 ANCIENT ITALY 


and Astyochus remained at Lipari.t. From this partition of terri- 
tory are excluded the regions occupied by the Dorians of Syracuse, 
Camarina, Gela, and Agrigentum—or, in other words, the coast 
to the south and southwest of Chalcidian Leontini—and the myth 
refers merely to the northern coast of Sicily, and to that of Italy 
between Regium and Sorrento. 

It is not my purpose to discuss here the multifarious informa- 
tion to be derived from this legend, and to show, for example, that 
the Ausonian population of the peninsula, Lipari, and Sicily sprang 
from a common stock, and that the intermediaries in the relations 
between Sicily and Campania were the Dorians of Lipari, who 
waylaid the ships of the Etruscans, and whom we find at the dawn 
of authentic Roman history in connection with the sending to 
Delphi of a golden cup after the capture of Veii (396 B.c.).?._ For 
our present purpose it is enough to note that the ships of the 
Liparaeans, which frequented the entire coast of southern Italy 
and Sicily, were accustomed to call at Sorrento in preference to the 
other points on the Gulf of Naples. With this fact should possibly 
be connected the statement that at a later period, at the time of 
Sextus Pompeius and Octavianus, the Liparaeans were transferred 
to the Gulf of Naples. 

The fact that Himera also was loa in the region assigned by 
the legend to the sons of Aeolus and grandsons of the Sorrentine 
_ Liparus is worthy of consideration. Near Himera, probably in 
the neighborhood of Thermae, was a celebrated temple sacred to 
Athena, which, from the account in Diodorus, seems to have been 
the most important of all those in Sicily.4 There are, however, 

t Diod. v. 7. 8. 

2 See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, pp. 119 ff.; for the cup see my Storia di 
Roma, I, 2, p. 12. 

3 Dio Cass. xlviii. 48, for the year 38 B.C. 

4 Diod. v. 3. Ciaceri (Contributo alla storia dei culti dell’ antica Sicilia [Pisa 
1884], p. 17) holds that the principal seat of the Athena cult in Sicily was at Agri- 
gentum. ‘This is quite possible, since the cult could have come to Himera from 
Agrigentum, on which city Himera depended for a certain period. Nevertheless, 
the account of Diodorus leaves no doubt that the cult of Athena was of the same 


primary importance to Himera, or rather the region near the Athenaeum, as the cult 
of Aphrodite was to Eryx, and that of Diana to Syracuse. 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 225 


no historical elements which would lead to the belief that the cult 
of Athena Siciliana in Campania came from the neighborhood of 
Himera. The information at our command seems rather to indi- 
cate that the Dorian Liparaeans sought to maintain the best of 
relations with the Dorians of Syracuse,’ and that the Syracusans, 
who reverenced Athena as a maritime goddess in the most impor- 
tant and ancient portion of their city,? succeeded in securing for 
themselves the control of the Campanian shores. 

Aside from the question of origin, since the coast, the islands, 
and the maritime cities of Campania and Lucania, from Sinuessa 
to Procida, and from Cumae to Palinurus and Buxentum, were 
called Sicilian, it remains the most probable hypothesis that the 
same term was applied to the Athenaeum opposite Capri, on account 
of its maritime and political relations with Sicily. Naturally the 
Liparaeans tried to gain possession of Sorrento, which offered a 
secure base of action for their maritime operations and their piracy. 
It is clear, however, that the Syracusans never ceased to occupy 
that region, or at least the neighboring Punta della Campanella. 
They had early seized Ischia, and by their possession of the extrem- 
ity of the Sorrentine peninsula, which dominated the Gulf of 
Naples, they kept track of the movements of the Etruscan ships 
and exercised their control over the neighboring Chalcidian cities. 

Probably the same reasons which led the Syracusans to occupy 
these strategic positions influenced the Neapolitans in not allow- 
ing others to take their place. We have not sufficient data con- 
cerning the regions which were subservient to Naples in early 

t The best proof of the friendship of the Liparaeans for Syracuse is given by 
the expedition of the Athenians against Lipari (Thuc. iii. 88). 

2 Polem. apud Athen. xi, p. 462 ¢; Cic. Verr. II. iv. 118. 


3In my Storia della Sicilia, etc. (I, p. 532) I erroneously stated that the pas- 
sages in Statius Silv. ii. 2. 2; iii. 2. 24, recording the Tyrrhena Minerva of the Punta 
della Campanella, prove Etruscan domination in Campania. In reality the poet 
alludes to the Etruscan name of Minerva. If Sorrento is termed wédts Tuppnvias 
by Steph. Byz. (s. v.), this merely proves that, thanks to Etruscan influence in 
Campania, various cities of that region were called Etruscan by Syracusan histo- 
rians of the fifth century (e. g., Philist., fr. 41 M.), in the same manner and for the 
same reasons that these same localities, as a consequence of the maritime control of 
Syracuse, were in large part termed wédes ZixeNas. 


226 ANCIENT ITALY 


times to enable us to trace with certainty the extent of her sway. 
We know that Capua was pressing her on one side,? and that the 
confederation of the Samnite peoples, which had its center at 
Nocera, succeeded in pushing as far as Sorrento and gaining 
possession of that city.2 Notwithstanding this, however, the 
region near the temple of the Sirens, and even the temple itself, 
remained in the hands of the Greeks, of whom, after Cumae had 
fallen into the hands of the Samnites about 421 B. c., Naples was 
the natural, and even the solitary, protector.3 

The opposition of the Samnite states surrounding Naples pre- 
vented her from holding any large amount of territory in the Cam- 
panian plain. To make up for this, she naturally sought to increase 
her power by sea. About the year 466, or at the latest about 427- 
412 B.c., Naples occupied Ischia and used it as a base of opera- 
tions against the Samnites. The island henceforth remained in 
her possession, not merely till 326, as is generally held, but till a 
much later period, about the time of Sulla.4 

There seems to be no doubt that Capri had always formed part 
of the domain of Naples. It was still in her possession when Ischia 
was taken from her, and was not given up until it was handed over 
to Augustus, at a time when there was no longer any question of a 
Neapolitan state or policy. One easily understands that, although 
fertile Ischia from an economic point of view was much superior 
to the rocky island of Capri, for strategical purposes—as was 
shown at a period not very remote from our own—-Capri was no 
less important to Naples, and was never allowed to pass into the 
possession of an enemy. It is also clear that Naples was inter- 
ested in owning the promontory of Athena. Having full posses- 

t According to the version of Dionysius (xv. 5), which in this particular is 
more trustworthy, the war between Rome and Naples was caused by incursions 
made on Campanian soil. Livy (viii. 22. 5), who supposes the Romans to be already 


masters of Capua, in this case is less reliable, saying that the war was caused by 
the hostility ‘‘adversus Romanos agrum Campanum Falernumque incolentes.” 

2Strab. v, p. 247 C.: Zuppevtdv rGv Kaywavev. Cf. the correct observations 
of Beloch, Campanien, p. 240. 

3 Liber col., p. 236 L. 4 See above, Chapters XVI and XVII. 

5 Strab., loc. cit.; Suet. Aug. 92. 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 227 


sion of Capri, the Punta della Campanella, and Ischia, if she could 
not prevent the approach of hostile ships (which was and still is 
impossible), it was at least possible for Naples to learn of the 
impending danger and to take the necessary precautions against 
those who would have threatened the safety of the state from that 
quarter. Moreover, with the possession of the Athenaeum it was 
easier to control the Nucerini, who in 310 B. Cc. were the enemies 
of Rome and Naples. The Nucerini would naturally seek to have 
free access to the channel between Capri and the Punta della Cam- 
panella, even though they could reach the Gulf of Salerno by other 
routes.* 

Aside from this, other and no less important considerations 
impelled the Neapolitans not to neglect the Sorrentine peninsula; 
for in the temple of the Sirens was also honored the Parthenope’ 
whose sepulcher Naples showed with such pride. On account 
of this cult, the inhabitants of the neighboring regions assembled 
there; and it is hardly necessary to call attention to the fact that 
in antiquity such cults and such gatherings were of much more im- 
portance, both commercially and politically, than at a later period.? 

The inscription of Domitia Calliste given at the beginning of 
this paper has been interpreted as meaning that this Domitia had 
been promoted from the rank of priestess of Athena Siciliana to 
that of public priestess of the city of Naples. This interpreta- 
tion, however, can hardly be correct. The words ’A@nvas ijpea 
(sic!) Luxedhs bro ocuvedrjto(v) Snwoola yevouevn, in bad Greek, 
merely mean that, by a decree of the Senate, Domitia Calliste 
was nominated sacerdos publica of Athena Siciliana. This leads 
to the conclusion that priesthoods from the neighboring regions 
subject to Naples were received in that city, just as at Rome the 
Laurentes-Laviniates, Succiniani, and Cabenses were gradually 

t That the Samnites belonging to the confederation of Nuceria, in addition to 
Sorrento possessed Capri for some length of time, may possibly be derived from 


Vergil (vii. 733), who alludes to the relations between that island and the “Sar- 
rastis populos et quae rigat aequora Sarnus;” cf. Con. apud [Serv.], ad vs. 738. 


2 Pseud.-Arist. De mir. ausc. 103 (98); Strab. v, p. 247 C.; Steph. Byz., s. v. 
Leipnvotocat. 


3 Gabrici, op. cit., p. 35. 


228 ANCIENT ITALY 


added to the priesthoods of the earliest city on the Palatine. The 
cult of Athena Siciliana of the Punta della Campanella was possibly 
added to that of Attic Athena in the same way that in mediaeval 
times to the worship belonging to the cathedral of Naples was 
added that of S. Restituta, patroness of Ischia, the island which 
was the most valuable of the Neapolitan possessions. In this 
manner religion was employed to strengthen the territorial, and as 
it were the national, unity of Naples. 

In short, a complex of circumstances leads us, ‘although with 
some reserve, to formulate the hypothesis that the cult of Athena 
at the Punta della Campanella is to be identified with that of 
Athena Siciliana mentioned in the inscription of Domitia Calliste, 
and that this cult arose as a result of the commercial and political 
influence of the Syracusans, and of the Siceliots who were more or 
less directly subject to them. This influence was especially felt 
during the period between 474 and 289 B.c. The reference to 
Naples in the inscription seems to indicate that Naples reclaimed 
all of the maritime territory which the Siceliots had occupied, and 
that she accepted the foreign divinities which had been imported 
to those places, and even granted them citizenship. 

The supposition that the cult of Athena Siciliana had its seat 
at the Athenaeum of the Punta della Campanella, on the channel 
traversed by all the ships plying between Naples and Sicily, reminds 
one of the analogous situation of the temple of Athena on the 
extremity of the Sallentine peninsula. This temple was the first 
object to meet the eyes of those coming from Greece to Italy, and 
was still seen by those going in the opposite direction when every- 
thing else had disappeared. Like that on the Punta della Cam- 
panella, it was connected with the myth of Ulysses.2 We are 

t The expression lépera Syuoola yevouévn bd ovyxdHrov is merely a version 
of the Roman formula: ‘“‘sacerdos publica electa a splendissimo ordine.” See, 
e. g., CIL, X, 819, 813, 816, 950, 998, 999; cf. 3920, 5414. 

2 See my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 554. The fact that the temple of the 
Punta della Campanella was also considered ‘pupa ’Odvccews (Strab. v, p. 247 C.) 
offers no ethnographical or chronological clue to the origin of the temple, since the 


entire coast of southern Italy and part of that of Sicily were connected with that 
hero. Cf. e. g., Leuca, Terina, Baiae, etc. 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 220 


» 


likewise reminded of the statements of Polemon of Ilium regarding 
the cult of Athena at Syracuse, to the effect that, when those who 
had set sail from Syracuse reached the point whence one beheld for 
the last time the shield placed above the temple of Athena on 
the height of. Ortygia, they threw into the sea a cup filled with 
flowers, honey, and incense, showing that, just as at Cape Leuca, 
the Athena of Syracuse was a protecting divinity of navigation." 
That the Athena of the Punta della Campanella was regarded in the 
same light is attested by Statius, who alludes to a custom analogous 
to that of the Syracusans.? 

Finally, the maritime character of the cult at the Athenaeum 
and its strict political connection with Naples are shown by what 
Livy relates for the year 172 B.c. When the Columna Rostrata 
which had been placed on the Capitoline after the naval victory 
of Cape Hermaeum, won in 255 over the Carthaginians, was struck 
by lightning, it was thought necessary to placate the wrath of the 
divinity by performing expiatory rites on the Capitoline where the 
ill omened event had occurred, and also “‘in Campania ad Minervae 
promunturium.”3 To explain why this special temple was selected, 
it is not enough to refer to the fact that during the First Punic War 
the Neapolitans had aided Rome with their ships, since that was 
also the case with the inhabitants of Regium, Locri, and Velia.4 
The passage in Livy is understood only by recognizing the mari- 
time character of the Athenaeum at the Punta della Campanella, 
and by remembering that the maritime power of Rome about 
172 B.C. was still founded on the naval forces of Naples. That 
this theory is probable, or even certain, is shown by the statements 
in Livy referring to the following year. We learn from Livy that 
in 171 B.C. the Greek cities of southern Italy continued to furnish 

t Polem. apud Athen. xi, p. 462 6. For the relation of Athena to Poseidon, 
see the passages quoted in Preller, Griech. Mythol., II, p. 878; cf. Ciaceri, op. cit., 
p. 18. It is not out of place to record that on Cape Sunium in Attica were found 


the statues of both of these divinities together. For Athena, goddess of tempests, 
see the material collected by Roscher, Lex., I, pp. 675 f. 


2 Stat. Silv. iii. 2. 22: “prima salutavit Capreas et margine dextro... 
sparsit Tyrrhenae Mareotica vina Minervae.” 


3 Liv. xlii. 29. 3. &Polyb: 1:20.34; cl. Lay. Zxxv.-16. 4; xexvi, 42.53 6 


230 ANCIENT ITALY 


the Romans with the necessary ships, and that Naples was the 
starting-point for the Roman fleet and the most important arsenal 
which Rome had at her disposal.? It was not, indeed, till the time 
of Sulla that this arsenal was destroyed.?, Moreover, that Minerva 
was the divinity which presided over the Roman fleets is confirmed 
by the account that it was in honor of Minerva and Mars that 
Scipio burned the ships which he had captured from the Cartha- 
ginians.3 

The Athena of the Punta della Campanella was greatly honored 
as protectress of navigation even down to imperial times. This is 
shown by a statement in Seneca to the effect that when the ships 
bound from Sicily to Naples reached the channel between Capri 
and the promontory of Minerva, they were compelled to take in 
their sails. The only exception to this rule was made in favor of 
the ships from Alexandria. It would be interesting to know 
whether in this exception we should see an allusion to the ancient 
maritime supremacy of Alexandria, or whether it was a result of 
the relations which had existed between Alexandria and the Cam- 
panian cities prior to the time when Campania became Roman 
territory.5 It would also be worth while to investigate whether 
traces of such practices were preserved in the customs which at a 
later period existed near Naples. Be that as it may, it is certain 
that the cult of Athena gradually replaced, and caused to be for- 
gotten, that of the Sirens—those strange mythological beings who 
by their singing enticed the passing sailors to their destruction,® 
and whose rocks were white with the bones of shipwrecked men.’ 
In this manner the honored protectress of industry and commerce 


t Liv. xlii. 48. 6, 9. 2 App. Bel. civ. i. 89. 3 App. Pun. 133. 

4Sen. Ep. x. 1. 2 (77): “cum intravere Capreas et promuntorium ex quo: 
alta procelloso speculatur vertice Pallas, ceterae velo iubentur esse contentae: 
siparum Alexandrinarum insigne iudicium est.’ 

5 Excellent proof of the relations which existed between Alexandria and Cam- 
pania before the second century is given by the episode of the Campanian Decius 
Magius (Liv. xxiii. 7 ff.). 

6 Stat. Siv. ii. 2. 116. 

7 Verg. Aen. v. 864 f.: “iamque adeo scopulos Sirenum advecta subibat ... . 
difficilis quondam multorumque ossibus albos.” 


CULT OF ATHENA SICILIANA 231 


was for a while associated with, and later substituted for, the wicked 
divinities who delighted in human misfortune. 

It seems natural to think that this change of cult took place 
slowly and as a result of elements coming in from without. While, 
on the one hand, philosophical speculation put an end to the adora- 
tion of fierce and monstrous divinities, on the other hand the 
progress in the art of navigation taught the ancients the method 
of avoiding, or at least of diminishing, the dangers of the charming 
but treacherous Strait of Capri.' It is of no avail to note that from 
the earliest times of Greek colonization there had flourished on the 
neighboring coasts the cult of Leucothea, the goddess who above 
all others favored navigation, and who was in a way the opposite 
of the Sirens. Leucothea was worshiped publicly at Velia, at 
Naples, and on one of the small islands near Capri;? but no trace 
_ of such worship exists for the Punta della Campanella, which was 
sacred to the Sirens. The substitution of Pallas Athena, and not 
Leucothea, for the Sirens makes all the more plausible the theory 
that the cult of Athena, which is very rare in southern Italy, was 
of non-Neapolitan origin, and was carried to the extremity of the 
Sorrentine peninsula by the Siceliots, and that a trace of this cult 
still remains in the inscription of Domitia Calliste, the public 
priestess of Athena Siciliana. 

In setting forth these conjectures with all reserve, I am far from 
thinking that the problem has been solved. I merely wish to 

t Cicero (De deor. nat. iii. 63), after setting forth the views of Zeno and the 
other Stoics on the essence of divinity, says: “qui tantus error fuit, ut perniciosis 
etiam rebus non modo nomen deorum tribueretur sed etiam sacra constituerentur. 
Febris enim fanum in Palatio et Orbonae ad aedem Larum et aram Malae Fortunae 
Esquiliis consecratum videmus.” Cf. De leg. ii. 28: ‘‘illud vitiosum Athenis 
quod .. . . fecerunt Contumeliae fanum et Impudentiae; virtutes enim, non vitia 
consecrare decet. araque vetusta in Palatio Febris et altera Esquiliis Malae 
Fortunae detestanda atque omne eiusmodi repudianda sunt.’”’ These doctrines 


originated with Plato (Polit. ii. 379), and are also connected with Xenophanes of 
the Eleatic school. 

a Pliny da ET .siii./82: 

3 For the cult of Leucothea at Velia see Xenoph. apud Aristot. Rhet. ii. 23, 
p- 1401 Bk. In regard to Naples see the inscription given by De Petra, Monu- 
menti dei Lincei, VIII (1898), p. 228; cf. Correra in the Studi of Milani, I (1899). 


232 ANCIENT ITALY 


incite others to new investigations, and above all to undertaking 
explorations on the extremity of the Sorrentine peninsula, where it 
is asserted that, owing to the devotion of those residing in the 
neighborhood, there existed ancient offerings (waXad avaOjpara) 
sacred to the Sirens. Furthermore, on the spot where the temple 
of Athena arose we should expect to find, if not architectural 
remains, at least traces of pottery, which would make possible a 
much more exact chronological comparison between the two 
sanctuaries and the two cults. It is quite within the bounds of 
possibility that on the site of the temple of the Sirens, and on the 
island of Ischia as well, there still lies concealed the evidence which 
would throw new light on the earliest commercial relations existing 
between Campania and Greece. 

t I allude merely to the traces of pottery, because the dense population which 
inhabited Sorrento in Roman (Lib. col. p. 236 L.) times and later, probably 
destroyed the more important remains. 

For the Graeco-Oscan necropolis discovered in 1837 near the Punta della Cam- 


panella, see the authors cited by Beloch, Campanien, p. 278. For the traces of 
antiquity on Ischia, see above, Chapter XVI. 


XX 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY 
OF ROME 


I 


In the introduction to his Roman history Dionysius of Hali- 
carnassus asserts that the foremost among the Greeks who pre- 
ceded him in chronicling the deeds of the Roman people were 
Hieronymus of Cardia and Timaeus. He then mentions as second 
to these a series of such writers as Antigonus, Polybius, and 
Silenus.t Dionysius, however, is not accurate in this, not only 
because immediately afterward, in connection with the origin of 
Rome, he goes on to give the opinion of the Syracusan Callias, the 
contemporary of Timaeus,? but especially because, in discussing the 
early history of the Siculi, he actually repeats the words of Anti- 
ochus of Syracuse, the historian of the end of the fifth century, who 
asserted that Siculus, the eponymous hero of the inhabitants of 
eastern Sicily, was a fugitive who had come from Rome. 

Why was he said to have come from Rome instead of from one 
of the numerous other cities of the Latins or Oscans? According 
to the tradition preserved by the Roman annalist, in 494 B. c. the 
consul Sp. Cassius contracted the foedus aequum with the Latins, 
and even with the Hernici. After the beginning of the fifth century 
Rome was at the head of Latium, and although, as we shall have 
occasion to repeat, the date assigned to the foedus Cassianum is 

t Dion. Hal. i. 5. 6. 2 Dion. Hal. i. 72. 


3 Antioch. Syr. apud Dion. Hal. i. 73: éel 8° "Irados xareytpa Mépyns é8a- 
aldevoev, él rovrov 5é dvnp adixro éx ‘Pwuns puyds (cf. ibid. 12) Pliny: (CN). 
H. iii. 57) says: “Theophrastus qui primus externorum aliqua de Romanis dili- 
gentius scripsit, nam Theopompus, ante quem nemo mentionem habuit, urbem 
dumtaxat a Gallis captam dixit, Clitarchus ab eo proximus legationem tantum ad 
Alexandrum missam.”’ That Pliny is in error here is explained by the fact that 
such writers as Antiochus were soon forgotten. Pliny cites among his authors 
(i. 4; V; vi; vil. 154, 207) another writer of the fifth century, Damastes of Sigeum, 
who also made mention of Rome; see Dion. Hal. i. 72. 


233 


234 ANCIENT ITALY 


uncertain, and even the personality of this consul shows a mingling 
of various fantastic elements, yet there is no reason for doubting that 
in the middle, or toward the end, of the fifth century, at the time 
of Antiochus, Rome was the most conspicuous city of Latium.? 
The statement that after the time of Sp. Cassius and Coriolanus 
(494-486 B.C.) the Roman plebs were fed with Sicilian grain 
is doubtful, or possibly altogether false. On the other hand, the 
two shipments of Sicilian grain which, according to the Roman 
annals, took place in 435 and 411, and which perhaps really 
occurred in 427 and 403-401 B. C., are probably historical.? 

This friendly intercourse between Rome and Syracuse finds 
confirmation in the references which have come down to us con- 
cerning the relations between the Etruscans and Syracusans. The 
Etruscan enemies of Syracuse, and of the other Greeks of Italy and 
Sicily, were defeated at Cumae by Hiero when, in 474 B.c., he 
went to the aid of that city,? and about 414 B. c. they sent ships 
to aid the Athenians against Syracuse. ‘They were also the obsti- 
nate enemies of Rome. At the end of the sixth century Rome had 
undermined the Etruscan power, and in the fifth century she 
fought against Fidenae and Veii. Roman tradition, when shorn 
of the particulars added by later annalists, and of a pretended 
chronological axpiBea (which, as we shall see in the following, 
and as I hope to show still better by future investigations, is utterly 
valueless for this period), finds general confirmation both in the 
history of the Greeks of Italy and Sicily, and also in their legends, 
which show a knowledge of the political conditions of the fifth 
century. 

Since from the fifth century on there existed friendly relations 
between Rome and Syracuse, it is natural to seek for the nature 
and importance of these relations. To be sure, the problem has 
often received partial treatment, especially since the keen eye of 


t For the foedus Cassianum and Sp. Cassius, see Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., II, 
pp. 153 ff. For the Sicilian grain and Coriolanus, see zbid., p. 147. 

2 Liv. iv. 25. 4, 52.6. The results of Holzapfel (Rém. Chronologie, pp. 156 ff.) 
seem to me to give the correct dates of these two events. 

3 E. g., Diod. xi. 51; Pind. Pyth. i. 72. 

4 Thuc. vi. 88, 103; vii. 53, 54, 57- 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 235 


Mommsen noted the great influence which the Dorians of Syra- 
cuse exercised upon Roman civilization. Following his example, 
it has been attempted to determine what words of their language 
have penetrated into Latin. The resemblance between the words 
which indicated the systems of monetary weights and measures 
in Sicily and in Latium has furnished material for extended dis- 
cussion. Art students too have seen the importance of this 
problem, and Helbig has well shown that the great hostility of 
Athens toward Syracuse at the beginning of the fifth century was 
due to the commercial hegemony of Syracuse, which prevented 
rival cities from participating directly in the traffic in Greek vases 
and other wares with the shores of Campania, Latium, and Etruria.? 

It seems to me, however, that this problem has not been inves- 
tigated in all its aspects, and that it is worth while to seek out the 
influence of these commercial relations on the earliest chronicles 
of Rome, and to ascertain how much of this history was derived 
from the Sicilian Greeks. It is natural to suppose that Syracuse 
and Sicily, which furnished Rome with many words relating to 
measures, coins, navigation, private contracts (loans), adminis- 
tration of justice, games, etc., should have been the first to occupy 
themselves with her history. Antiochus, Timaeus, and Callias 
were Syracusans, Silenus of Calatia and Philinus of Agrigentum 
were Siceliots, and all had a hand in the writing of Roman history. 
To trace their influence on the formation of the earliest history of 
Rome is both interesting and profitable, since, for the same reasons 
that this history contains various elements taken directly from 
that of Greece,3 it is natural to suppose that other elements were 
borrowed from the history of the Greeks of Sicily and Italy. 

t See Mommsen, Rém. Gesch., 16, pp. 198 ff.; cf. p. 444; Weise, Die griech. 
W orter im Latein (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 75 ff.; idem in Rhein. Mus., XXXVIII (1883), 
pp. 556 ff. It is hardly necessary to recall, for example, the name of the Roman 


coin (the forty-eighth part of an as) called the sicilicus, the medimnus termed 
sicilianus, etc. 

2 Helbig, in the Rendiconti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei, 1889, pp. 79 ff. 

3 Cf., for example, the two stratagems of Tarquinius in regard to Gabii (Liv. iv. 
50 ff.; Dion. Hal. iv. 50 ff.). They were taken directly from the story of Zopyrus 
and Thrasybulus (see Herod. iii. 153 ff.; v. 92). 


236 ANCIENT ITALY 


That this really is the case is shown by the fact, as we shall see 
more clearly farther on, that the earliest Roman historians admit 
that the Siculi were the most ancient inhabitants of Latium; and it 
is brought out even more definitely by the myths of Heracles and 
of Aeneas. How and when these two myths became localized on 
the banks of the Tiber, and whether they came from Sicily or from 
Campania, it is not easy to determine. It will suffice to recall 
that at the beginning of the sixth century Stesichorus of Himera 
sang of the arrival of Aeneas in Campania, and localized in Italy 
the myth of Heracles and the herds of Geryon. Indeed, the 
arrival of Heracles on the banks of the Tiber was anterior even to 
the legend of Romulus, and was the most ancient fact in the pseudo- 
history of Rome, just as it was the most ancient fact in the pseudo- 
history of nearly all the Italiot and Siceéliot cities, to which Heracles 
was said to have come even before the Greek colonists." 

If we remember that the Greek peoples and Greek historians 
localized the myths of their mother-country in the various countries 
where they dwelt for longer or shorter periods, and that the Romans 
were later disposed to receive these myths and false historical 
origins as readily as they did the Greek culture, it is more than 
natural to believe that the early Siceliot historians after Antiochus 
should have localized Italiot and Siceliot events and legends in 
Latium, and that their example should have been followed by the 
Roman annalists. 

In the following pages I propose to enumerate and to examine 
the elements in the earliest history of Rome which are derived 
from Sicily, while the following chapter will deal with the elements 
which for the same reasons were derived from Magna Graecia. 
The enumeration will be brief and probably incomplete; but if 
the general plan is correct, the missing details may easily be filled 
in at some later period, either by myself or by someone else. 

On more than one occasion Dionysius indicates the cities . 


1 For the arrival of Heracles in the various Italiot and Siceliot cities, see 
Diod. iv. 23; Dion. Hal. i. 44; Etym. mag., s. v. MéraBos; Sch. Theoc. i. 116. 
The legends which are connected with the I'npvovls of Stesichorus were already 
mentioned in connection with the various Siceliot cities by Hecataeus; see Steph. 
Byz., s. v. Zodods. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 237 


which were said to have been occupied by the Siculi before the 
pretended arrival of the aborigines. These were Caenina and 
Antemnae,? Falerii and Fescennium,? Tibur,3 and Rome itself.4 
In this Dionysius does not quote Antiochus, but deduces his state- 
ments from his own sources, or rather from his Roman source. 
Varro—the teacher, so to speak, of Dionysius—asserts that Rome 
was originally occupied by the Siculi, and says that he learned 
this from the early Roman annals.’ In the fragments from the 
Roman annalists we find other references of this nature. Cassius 
Hemina, an annalist of the second century B. C., says that Aricia 
and Crustumerium were founded by the Siculi;® a like origin was 
attributed to Gabii, on the authority, even if indirect, of an early 
annalist;7 according to Cato,’ the Sicani are said to have occupied 
Tibur before the Greeks; and finally Fabius Pictor, the father of 
Roman annalists, asserts that the Volscians also were Siculi by 
origin.® Certainly not all of these accounts are derived from 
Antiochus, but are the development of his theory and statement 
that Siculus was an exile who came from Rome. Whether or not 
the names of Ciciliano near Tibur, and of other localities termed 

t Dion. Hal. ii. 35. 2 Dion. Hal. i. 21. 3 Dion. Hal. i. 16. 

4 Dion. Hal. i. 9. 40; ii. 1; cf. i. 73. For the Siculi at Lanuvium, see Serv. 
ad Aen. i. 2. 

5 Varr. D. L. L. v. 101: “‘Lepus quod Siculi quidam Graeci dicunt ézopu, 
a Roma quod orti Siculi, ut annales veteres nostri dicunt fortasse hinc illuc tulerunt 
et hic reliquerunt id nomen.” Cf. Fest., s. v. Sacrani, p. 321 M.=468 Th. d. P. 

6 Cass. Hem. apud Sol. ii. ro=fr. 2 in Peter, F. H. R., p. 68: “Ariciam ab 
Archiloco Siculo;” Serv. ad Aen. vii. 661=fr. 3: “Siculum quendam nomine 
uxoris suae Clytemestrae condidisse Clytemestrum, mox corrupto nomine Crustu- 
merium dictum.” Both Cassius Hemina and Varro make use of the expression 
Siculus to indicate the Siceliots also. This has been overlooked by certain critics 
who in studying the language of the Siculi have regarded as indigenous and Sicilian 
various words of purely Greek character. I shall discuss this elsewhere. 

7 Sol. ii. ro. 8 Cat. apud Sol. ii. 8=Peter, F. H. R., fr. 56, p. 52. 


9 Fab. Pict., fr. 2 in Peter, F. H. R., p. 8. Also according to Cato (Peter, 
tbid., fr. 7, p. 44), the aborigines (the earliest inhabitants of Latium) are said to 
have occupied in early times the country of the Volscians. It is possibly not out 
of place to note that the names of the two Volscian cities Ecetrae (Liv. ii. 25) and 
Vescia (Liv. viii. 11. 5) recall the Sicilian Echetla (Diod. xx. 31. 5) and Vessa 
(Polyaen. v. 1. 4). For the Siculus who went to the country of the Rutuli, see 
Serv. ad Aen. i. 533; cf. Verg. Aen. xi. 312. 


238 ANCIENT ITALY 


Siculian by the ancients, really allude to the existence of the Siculi 
in various parts of Latium and central Italy, it is evident that only 
by referring to Syracusan influence can we understand the theories 
advanced by Antiochus and Philistus, the latter of whom connected 
Siculus, son of Italus, with the Ligurians, while Antiochus said 
that after the death of Italus, at the time of his successor Morges, 
Siculus came from Rome. It is hardly necessary to note that 
neither the derivation of Aricia from the Siculian Archilochus, 
nor that of Crustumerium from Clytemnestra, wife of a Siculian, 
has anything to do with the real existence of indigenous Siculi. 
In this case Siculus, by an obvious literary elaboration, is equiva- 
lent to Siceliot. 

We cannot now determine with accuracy what writer was the 
originator of the above-quoted statements. Itmay have been either 
Philistus or Timaeus. At any rate, itis certain that before they were 
received by the early Roman annalists they had been given by Sice- 
liot historians, in the same way that, even before the Romans, Greek 
writers had narrated the Trojan origin of Rome and Romulus.* 

All of these various statements came into being as a consequence 
of the active commercial relations existing between Rome and 
Syracuse at least from the end of the fifth century, and as a result 
there arose the following curious legend, which is preserved in the 
commentary on Vergil known under the name of Servius. The 
story goes that the Syracusans, after conquering the Athenians, 
made the prisoners dig a trench called Thybris ao tis bBpews, 
and that “later, when the Siculi [i. e., Syracusans] went to Italy, - 
they inhabited the region which extends from the present site of 
Rome to the Rutuli and Ardea,” and when they arrived there, 
“ad imaginem fossae Syracusanae,” they gave the name of 
“Tybrim” to the river which had formerly been known as the 
Albula or Tiber.?. As far as I know, such an etymology, which is 


t For the reference of Callias to Romulus and Remus, and to Telegonus, the 
founder of Tusculum, all descendants of Trojan Rome, see Mommsen in Hermes, 
XVI (1881), pp. 5 ff. For the Trojan origin of Rome according to Timaeus, see 
Geficken, Timaios Geographie des Westens (Berlin, 1892), pp. 39 ff. 

2 Serv. ad Aen. iii. 500; cf. viii. 330. The form @v¥fprs to indicate the Tiber 
is used by Paus. viii. 43. 2, in telling the myth of the Arcadian Evander, and by 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 239 


also given to the Syracusan Thymbris, is accepted by no Roman 
writer for the Tiber,? but it is nevertheless natural to expect it in 
connection with the river of a city which called the early prisons 
cut in the sides of the Capitoline cliff autumia—a word which, as 
early writers have also noted, was derived from the Aatoplat, or 
prisons, of Syracuse. It is possible that Rome also got from Syra- 
cuse the name of carcer, which was given to the neighboring Tw/- 
lianum.?_ The Siculi who came to the banks of the Tiber were of 
course the Siceliots, since the Romans gave the name of Siculi 
indiscriminately both to the original inhabitants and to the Greeks 
of Sicily. This sort of attribution arises from the same cause 
which led Dionysius to term Fescennium and Falerii Siculian, and 
others to call them Argive, although Falerii was of Chalcidian origin. 


Plut. Paul. Ael. 30. Plutarch, moreover, often uses the form Ovpfpis (e. g., Rom. 
1; Cam. 18; cf. Dionys. Per., vss. 352 ff.), which corresponds exactly to the Syra- 
cusan OvpuBpis; cf. Theocr. i. 1t6. 


1 The Syracusan origin of this legend is indicated by the fact that for the 
Syracusan Thymbris, to the banks of which, just as to the Tiber, Heracles is said 
to have come with the cattle of Geryon, was derived the etymology d7é r7s bBpews; 
see Sch. Theocr. i, vs. 116. 


2 Varr. D. L. L. 151: “quod Syracusis, ubi delicti causa custodiuntur vocantur 
latomiae, inde Lautumia translatum, vel quod hic quoque in eo loco lapidicinae 
fuerunt.” xdpxap also is a word used by Sophron. apud Phot. Lex., p. 132. 2; 
cf. Hesych., s. v. 


3 For Argive Falerii, see Cat: apud Plin. N. H. iii. 51; Steph. Byz., s. v. 
@ddioxos; for the Chalcidian designation see Iust. xx. 11; for Argive Fescennium 
see Sol. ii. 7; for Achaean Perusia see Iust. xx. 13. Moreover, the Argei, who 
belonged to the most ancient sacra of the Roman patriciate, were Argives or Pelo- 
ponnesans, as was noted by Wilamowitz apud Mommsen, Rém. Staatsrecht, III, 
p- 123, n. 6. Probably (see Mommsen, ibid.) they were prisoners taken in war. 
It may be that the pretended Argive founders of Fescennium and Falerii were 
called into being after the Sabines had accepted from the Samnites the belief that 
they were descended from the Laconians. But this belief, which the Tarentines 
had evolved for political purposes (see Strab. v, p. 250 C.), although it had already 
been noted by Cato (apud Serv. ad Aen. viii. 638), did not arise at Tarentum 
before the beginning of the fourth century, when the Samnite-Lucanian invasion 
succeeded that of the Peucetian Iapygians. Although the influence of the Taren- 
tines is evident in Campania after the second half of the fourth century (see Liv. 
viii. 25. 7, 27.1, 39.1; Dion. Hal. xv. 5. 10; cf. the coins of Suessa of the fourth 
century, Head, Hist. num., p. 35), it possibly did not extend to the Sabines proper 
before the beginning of the third century. On the other hand, Falerii and Fescen- 
nium were not Sabine. It seems permissible to suppose that the Argive Pelopon- 


240 ANCIENT ITALY 


According to Dionysius of Halicarmassus, the Greek writers 
who before his time had busied themselves with the deeds of 
the Roman people, had treated this subject in rather brief com- 
pendia.* The mere reading of even the few fragments of Timaeus* 
pertaining to the history of Rome which have come down to us does 
not, however, give this Impression. He discusses minutely, for ex- 
ample, the Trojan cults of Lavinium, and ako the coins attributed 
to Servius Tullws* Dhonysius” statement should be received 
with caution. Asa writer he was diffuse, and it is natural that the 
narratives of his predecessors should appear to him more im the 
light of compendia. Im companson with his first eleven books, the 
first three of Livy are m reality but mere outlimes, although to 
modem writers, partly on account of the falsity or uncertainty of 
their contents, they seem much too long drawn out. However, the 
statement of Antiochus that Siculus was an exile who came from 
Rome is not isolated, but is connected ‘with a theory concerning 
the beginnings of Latium and of the adjacent country of the Rutuli 
and Volsc. 

Mommsen has well brought out the value of the statements 
of Callias, the histoman of Agathocles, concerning Romulus and 
Remus. brothers of the Telegonus who founded Tusculum, and 
grandchildren of the Tron Roma? For the moment [ have 
nesams were mo otter them the Achseam Arcediams, of whom comsiderable numbers 
came to Sac amd the Chaliadizm cities, especialy at the time of Hier, after 2bout 
go nc (ct Dd = om 6 72; Roehl Iu. Gr. Ant. g5; Paws v. 27. 1)- 
Ip ths case the Argive founders of Fescemmium and Falers would offer much resem 
biamce to the Geuli wi, according to Dionysus, first occupeed these cities. Alo 
Titer, whack according to Diomysms (Zc. a@.) was Sicolen, according t2 Horace 
(Carm. & 6. 5) was Argive. 

= Diom Hel i 5: sspeleudides Grorugeil rise Soop, 

2 For Lavinaes see Tim aped Diem Bel i 67—20 Miller; cf Lycophr. 
226; Gefichen, of ct. p rez. For the origim of the Romans and the Tron 
horse, see Tim apad Poly xm g6—f 152. For the coimage of Servims Tullius, 
see Timm aped Pim N. H. xxum 23: “Servis rex peo: semavit acs Ante2 
radi uses Romae Timeecus tad Sigmate est mote pecadem: unde ef pecmi2 
appeliste” This last semtemce is fully explaimed when we comsider that aleady 
im the Makreien of Aristotle attention was called to these coims and their relative 
use amnong tine wErious states; see for exemple, Arist. Frog. ec Rose, 21; frr- 476, 
gra, $80. 53a, joo. $3; ch Amst Pal to 

3 Hermes, XVI (2332), pp. 6% 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 241 


nothing to add to this, and confine myself to a mere mention of the 
fact that in the legendary history of Rome at the time of the kings 
there is another element which refers to Syracuse; i. e., that relating 
to the Corinthian Demaratus. It is not easy to decide whether 
this legend at first referred to Tarquinius and was not localized at 
Rome till later, or whether it was related in connection with Rome 
from the very beginning.* It will suffice to recall that it is often 
explained as a result of the commercial relations between Corinth 
and Rome, since Corinthian vases were common in Rome and 
Etruria, and since, as has been noted by Helbig, in the fifth cen- 
tury Corinthian Syracuse monopolized the importation of Greek 
vases into Italy. Tarquinius is said to have been the son of this 
Demaratus, and, according to the explicit statement of Cicero,” 
introduced the provisions concerning widows and orphans which 
were found in the constitution of Corinth. Still another indication 
of the influence of Sicily on Rome is found in the cognomen of 
Siculus, which was used by one of the oldest of the Roman families, 
the Cloelii, who boasted of Alban origin. 

I shall not dwell longer on allusions of this nature, but prefer 
to discuss a complex of facts pertaining to the first years of the 
Republic, which relate to Sp. Cassius, Coriolanus, the cult of 
Ceres, the Roman secessions, the tribunate of the plebs, and the 
agrarian laws. It seems to me that all of these betray clearly 
enough Siceliot, and especially Syracusan, origin. 

Let us commence with the first secessio plebis. The plebs 
who retired to the mons sacer were reconciled with the patricians 
by Menenius Agrippa, who recounted to them the anecdote of the 
various members of the body conspiring against the stomach. I 
shall not pause to show the numerous contradictions and improba- 
bilities which have been noted in this narration, as well as in others 

t It should not be forgotten that, according to the Greek historians, Rome was 
an Etruscan city; see Dion. Hal. i. 29. 

2 Cic. De leg. ii. 36. 

3 For the Cloelii Siculi see Mommsen, Rim. Forsch. I, p. 113. In the earliest 
documents—i. e., the statutes of the year 436 or 426 B. C_—the cognomen does not 
yet appear. See Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 23; cf. Cichorius, “De fastis consular. anti- 
quiss.,” in Leipziger Studien, 1886, p. 179- 


242 ANCIENT ITALY 


of early Roman history.t For our purpose it will suffice to recall 
that, according to a tradition followed by Cicero, and known also 
to Plutarch and Livy, it was not Menenius Agrippa, but the 
dictator Valerius (which brings to mind the consul Valerius of the 
second secession), who related the fable and made peace between 
the patricians and the plebs.? It is also necessary to note that 
the legendary character of the first secession appears from the 
fact that, while according to the source of Livy it took place on 
the mons sacer, according to other annalists, such as Piso Frugi, 
it occurred on the Aventine, whither the plebs are said to have 
retired at the time of the second secession in 449 B.C. The uncer- 
tainty of the tradition appears from the fact that in certain authors 
the plebs in both the first and second secessions occupied succes- 
sively, but in different order according to the different sources, 
the two hills above mentioned.3 


t See my Storia di Roma, Vol. I. 


2 Cic. Brut. 14. 54; Val. Max. viii. 9; Plut. Pomp. 13; cf. Liv. viii. 18. 12; 
Oros. ii. 5. 5; cf. Miinzer, De gente Valeria (Oppoliae, 1891), pp. 18 ff. 

3’ Pis: Froapud: Liv. i.°32.°35, ui54..$;> Cic. Pro: Mur. 7. 15; cf. Sall-Tsg- 31: 
17. The uncertainty of the tradition brought it about that the first secession was 
fixed upon both heights in two successive occupations (see Cic. De rep. ii. 33. 58; 
Sall. apud Aug. D. C. D. ii. 18; cf. Schwegler, Joc. cit.). Also the second secession 
was fixed, first upon the Aventine, and then upon the mons sacer on the Via Nomen- 
tana (Liv. iii. 52. 3). In referring to the first secession Varro says (D. L. L. v. 
81): “tribuni plebei quod ex tribunis militum primum tribuni plebei facti qui 
plebem defenderent in secessione Crustumerina.” From this secession the tribe 
of the same name is said to have been called. See Mommsen, Rémisches Staats- 
recht, III, pp. 167, 171. The territory of Crustumerium also figures in the account 
of the second secession (Liv. iii. 42; Dion. Hal. xi. 23, 25, 27). The fact that 
Cicero narrates these secessions differently has caused Volkmar (De annalibus 
Romanis quaestiones [Marburgi, 1890], pp. 14 ff.) to think that Cicero may have 
written his accounts at different periods, both before and after the pseudo-history 
of the decemvirate had become further falsified, and having in mind contempo- 
raneous facts relating to the history of Julius Caesar. Without entering into the 
question as to whether or not the character of Appius Claudius contains elements 
taken from that of Caesar, I wish merely to note that the diverse opinions expressed 
by Cicero may be explained by the different sources which he used, and that the 
Menenius Agrippa of 493 is quite possibly identical with the Menenius Agrippa 
who was tribune of the plebs in 410 B. c., and who was no less known and dear to 
the plebs than the other (see Liv. iv. 53. 11). We have various examples of such: 
duplication of a single individual. ‘The plebeian Junius Brutus of the first secession 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 243 


Eminent historians, Mommsen among others,’ believe, in sub- 
stance, in the historical reality of the first secession. It seems, 
however, that the by no means casual resemblance in the particu- 
lars of the two secessions throws much doubt upon the actual exis- 
tence of at least the first, especially since, as Niese has pointed out,? 
the names of the tribunes of the plebs who are said to have been 
nominated for the first time in 493 resemble too closely those men- 
tioned by Diodorus for 471 in connection with the second seces- 
sion for one to think that they do not refer to the same persons. 
From all these considerations I deem fictitious not merely the 
fable of Menenius and Valerius, and the particulars of the first 
secession, but the very occurrence of a secession in 493 B. C. 

I am confirmed in the above statement by the further fact that 
Herodotus narrates a somewhat similar circumstance in connection 
with the Siceliot Gela. A sedition having occurred in that city, 
says Herodotus, those of the citizens who were worsted betook 
themselves to Mactorium, a city situated above Gela, whence 
Telines, an ancestor of Gelo, the tyrant of Syracuse, led them back 
to their native town. He accomplished his purpose without assis- 
tants, merely by the employment of the ‘pa of the infernal deities. 
How Telines obtained possession of these (ea Herodotus does not 
tell us. He only asserts that by means of them, and on the condi- 
tion that the office of priest to Demeter and Proserpine should 
remain in his family,3 he led his countrymen back to Gela. It is 


(Dion. Hal. vi. 70) is nothing but a poor duplication of the patrician of the same 
name, the liberator of Rome, who, as Mommsen says, is himself quite probably 
apocryphal (see Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., I, p. 111). 

t Mommsen, Rém. Staatsr., III, p. 144, n. 1. 

2 Niese, De annalibus Rom. observationes (Marburgi, 1886), pp. vi ff.; cf. my 
Storia di Roma, pp. 532 ff. 

3 Herodot. vii. 153. The following words should be noted: rotrouvs dy 6 
Tyrlyns xariyaye és TédAnv, Exwv ovdeulay dvipar Stvauv, add’ ipa robrwy TSv Gedy. 
bGev 5¢ attra EhaBe H adrds éxrjcato, ToiTo ovk @xw elwat, Tovroor S’dv ricuvos 
éay xaryyaye. Possibly in place of éxrjcaro we should read éxpyjcaro. That the 
infernal deities mentioned in this connection were Demeter and Persephone does not 
require demonstration. At the most it will suffice to recall that Gelo, the descen- 
dant of Telines, was a priest of these two goddesses (Pind. O/. vi, vss. 158-60; Phil. 
and Timaeus ad Sch. ad loc.). A priest Telinus is mentioned in an inscription of 
Phintias of the Geloans (see Kaibel, Inscr. Gr., Sic. et It., 258). 


244 ANCIENT ITALY 


clear that we have here to deal with a union of historical fact and 
legend. Herodotus also tells us that the ancestor of the family | 
of Gelo who accompanied Antiphemus and the Lindians when 
they came to Sicily and founded Gela, was é« vycov THrov ris 
él Tprorim xemévns. But Telines signifies “the man from 
Telos,” and it is natural to suspect that, much more than being 
one of the ancestors of Gelo, he was the very ancestor who came 
from that island. The observation of Herodotus that Telos was 
opposite Cape Triopium is also important, since the cult of Demeter 
and Persephone existed on this cape at an early period.t' On the 
other hand, that legends were connected with Telines is shown by 
the same words of Herodotus. After relating how Telines brought 
his countrymen back to Gela by means of the ‘pa of the two god- 
desses, he marvels how this could have been done by a man whom 
the Sicilian colonists called weak and effeminate. It is clear that 
this later assertion arose from an erroneous derivation of tTnAivns 
from O7Xvs. 

Thus we see that the cult of Demeter and Persephone in Rhodian 
Gela was derived from that of Cape Triopium, opposite Rhodes 
and Telos, and that the account in Herodotus contains simply a 
legend which pretends to explain why the office of priest of these 
goddesses was hereditary in the family of the Deinomenids, who 
were descendants of the more or less historical Telines. It is not 
our purpose, however, to examine further into the origin and nature 
of this legend in connection with the history of Sicily. For our 
purpose it is more important to notice the similarity, or rather the 
almost exact correspondence, which exists between the secession of 
the Geloans to Mactorium and the first secession of the Roman 
plebs. An accurate examination of the two narratives will further 
show that we have to deal, not with two analogous events, but with 
a single legend.? 


tC. O. Miiller, Die Doriker, I2, p. 404; Preller, op. cit., 13, pp. 621, 638; cf. 
Sch. Pind. Pyth., II, 27; Pind. Ol. vi, vs. 98; Ed. Luebbert, Meletemata in Pindari 
locos de Hieronis regis sacerdotio Cereali (Bonnae, 1886-87). 

2 On the other hand, the secession of 369 B. C., which occurred at Sparta upon 
the arrival of Epaminondas, is historical. About two hundred of the secessionists 
occupied the hill on which the temple of the Issorian Artemis was located. The 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 245 


The cult of Ceres, which plays such an important part in the 
story of Telines and the secession of Gela, is no less intimately 
connected with the story of the Roman secessions. Whoever 
injured one of the tribunes or aediles of the plebs who had come 
into being as a result of the first secession, became sacer to Jupiter, 
and his property was consecrated to Ceres and Persephone. At 
the temple of Ceres the plebeian aediles, of whom two were later 
termed aediles ceriales, saw to it that the plebs did not lack the 
grain which from the fifth century on came to Rome, especially 
from Campania and Sicily. In times of famine they thus enabled 
the plebs to free themselves from the usury of the patricians, who 
owned the greater portion of the land. Ceres was the protecting 
goddess of the plebs, and her cult remained exclusively plebeian. 
This explains why, according to the Roman tradition, in the same 
year in which the first secession took place (493 B. Cc.) the temple 
of Ceres was dedicated by the Sp. Cassius who by his distribu- 
tion of the Sicilian grain is said to have aimed at making himself 
tyrant of Rome, and whose property was consecrated to Ceres, the 
goddess of plebeian liberty.* 


sedition was quelled as a result of the presence of mind of Agesilaus, who presented 
himself to them unarmed, followed by a single servant, and, pretending not to have 
understood their intentions, gave orders to occupy another strategic point. See 
Plut. Ag. 32. 4 ff.; Polyaen. ii. x. 14. 

1 See, e. g., Liv. iii. 55. 7; ii. 41. For the tribunate, see the data collected by 
Mommsen, Rém. Staatsr., II, pp. 261 ff. For the political character of the cult of 
Ceres at Rome, see Preller-Jordan, Rom. Myth., Il, pp. 37 ff.; Marquardt-Wissowa, 
Rom. Alterth., III’, pp. 361 ff. That the plebeian aediles made gifts to Ceres, and 
that this cult was of a political character, has already been brought out by Schweg- 
ler (op. cit., II’, pp. 278 ff.). Mommsen (Rém. Staatsr., II, p. 470) does not deny 
that the word aedilis, as Niebuhr thought, may have been derived from the aedis 
of Ceres, but seems to prefer the etymology of Varr. D. L. L. v. 81: “qui aedes 
sacras et privatas procuraret.” But these were the later aediles. Mommsen 
seems to me to err in asserting, in opposition to the theory of the derivation of the 
name from the aedis of Ceres, ‘‘dass der Cerestempel doch nicht der Tempel 
iiberhaupt war,” since the temple of Ceres, whether because the most ancient 
among those of the plebs, or because of the political and economic significance of 
the cult, was certainly the plebeian temple par excellence in Rome, just as it was in 
Sicily (see below), whence the Romans received the cult of this divinity. Farther 
on Mommsen (loc. cit.) thinks that after the introduction of the Licinio-Sextian 
laws in 367, the Roman aedileship assumed the character of the Greek dyopavoyla, 


246 ANCIENT ITALY 


At Syracuse also, the cult of Ceres does not seem to have been of 
great importance at first. In the ancient city of the geomori, or 
patricians, the primary deities were Artemis and Athena, honored 
in Ortygia, and Jupiter Olympus, honored in the Olympieum of 
Polichna. The temple of Ceres at Rome was near the Circus 
Maximus, and was therefore at the foot of the Aventine where, 
according to early tradition, the first secession occurred, and where 
the second in reality took place. It was also outside the pomerium 
of Roma quadrata and of the City of the Seven Hills, and therefore 
far from the place where the temples of the patrician state were 
located. In like manner, at Syracuse the temple of the two 
deities stood in a suburb, the Neapolis, and was founded, not by 
the geomori, but by a foreigner, the descendant of Telines, who 
seized the city.’ 

At the time when Gelo made himself master of Syracuse, a 
secession had occurred in that city. The plebeian party, the «ad- 
dxvptot, made up, like the Roman plebs, of various elements, 
had driven out the geomori, the owners of the land, who therefore 
corresponded to the Roman patricians. The geomori retired to 
Casmenae. Gelo, profiting by these discords, proceeded with 
them toward Syracuse. The populace, says Herodotus, upon his 
arrival yielded up the city of their own accord.?, This means that 
Gelo presented himself as peace-maker and friend of the people; 
and this is the reason why in his history Diodorus, or rather his 
source Timaeus, opposed to the later tyrants, such as Dionysius 
Nevertheless, if this may be said for the entire Roman commonwealth, it was cer- 
tainly true of the plebs from the fifth century on, since after 449 B.c (Liv. iii. 
55) we see that the official seat and archives of the aediles were located in the 
temple of Ceres, the goddess of grain. 


1 For the foundation of the temple of Demeter and Persephone at Syracuse, 
see Diod. xi. 26. 

2 Herodot. vii. 155. It is clear that» the Syracusan KadXcxdpior were in every 
respect similar to the Roman plebs, as is correctly conceived by Mommsen (Rém. 
Staatsr., III, pp. 54 ff.). They were the doo of the geomori, according to 
Herodot. (Joc. cit.,), and were said to be dof\o tay puyddwr by Timaeus apud 
Phot., s. v. KaAAcKdpiot. Aristotle (loc. cit.) says they were tavtodamol; cf. Dion. 
Hal. vi. 62, where the Syracusan xaA\cxpcoe are expressly compared with the Roman 
plebs. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 247 


and Agathocles, the figure of the well-known tyrant and friend of 
the democracy, who is said to have preserved in part the appear- 
ance of a popular government in Syracuse, and who even let it be 
believed that he was willing to return to the condition of a private 
citizen.t Moreover, that Ceres was the protecting goddess of the 
Syracusan democracy may be concluded from what is said about 
the auspicious predictions given by Demeter and Persephone to 
the Corinthian Timoleon when he set out to free Syracuse from 
the tyrants,? and from the fact that Agathocles was forced, not by 
the magistrates, but by the people, to take oath in the temple of 
Demeter, where he swore that he would not attempt to injure the 
democracy. The significance of the oath of Agathocles, and the 
reason why he was conducted by the citizens to the temple of 
Demeter, appear still more clearly when we remember that he 
inaugurated his political career as demagogue and protector of 
the plebs.4 

The first secession of the Roman plebs, in 494-493 B. C., re- 
sembles in its essential features the secession of the geomori of Syra- 

t See Diod. xi. 38. 67; xiv. 66 (Timaeus); xxi. 17; Ael. V. H. vi. 11; Polyaen. 
12007, 

2Plut. Tim. 8: ‘yevoudvwy 5¢ rdv vedy éroluwv cal rots orparidras dv ee 
mwopicbévrwy, al pev lépecac THs Képys bvap @dotav dev ras Oeds mpds dmrodnulav ored- 
Nouévas kal Aeyovoas ws Tiuoddéovre wéAdovot Tupmrety els DixeNlav. Cf. what Plu- 
tarch shortly after has to say concerning the celestial torch which accompanied 
the ships of Timoleon. To the account of the dream of the priestesses of the 
deities, Diodorus (xiv. 66) adds that, when Timoleon sailed for Sicily, he named 
one of his best ships after Demeter and Persephone. 

3 Diod. xix. 5. 4: mapax6els [i. e., Agathocles] els 7d ris Ajunrpos iepdy bd 
T&v modkitdv Gyore undév évavrwOncerOar TH Syuoxparla. This is badly told in 
the compendium of Iust. xxii. 2. 8. According to Hesychius (s. v.), at Syracuse 
and Tarentum Demeter was termed ém:Avoayévy, and this appellation is explained 
by Hesychius as éAevGepia. Demeter, as we learn from the inscriptions of Cos 
(see Paton-Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos [Oxford, 1891], pp. 341 ff.), was the most 
important goddess among the Pamphylians év Zirég, one of the three Doric tribes 
which also existed at Agrigentum (see Kaibel, Imscr. Gr., It. et Sic., No. 952), and 
which certainly existed at Gela, the metropolis of Agrigentum, and at Syracuse 
itself. It is possible, as the name would seem to indicate, that this tribe of the 
Pamphylians was in origin less ancient and honorable than the others. 

4 This is expressly stated by Diod. xix. 3, who speaks of his Syunyoplar, and 
says that by public discourses he opposed the increasing tyranny of Sosistratus 
(ibid. 5; cf. Iust. xxii. 1. 9). 


248 ANCIENT ITALY 


cuse in 487; with this difference, however, that at Syracuse it was 
the patricians, and at Rome the plebs, who abandoned the city. 
From this latter point of view, on the other hand, the situation at 
Rome and at Gela was exactly the same. If we keep in mind the 
plebeian or democratic character of Ceres, both in Rome and in 
Sicily, we understand still better the connection which at first 
glance seems to exist between the fable of Menenius and the half- 
fictitious story of Telines. 

Unfortunately, Herodotus does not inform us what use Telines 
made of the sacred objects of the two goddesses. We certainly 
cannot assert that in his source was related some trifling affair 
similar to that attributed to Agrippa or to Valerius. At any rate, 
grain was in antiquity, as it is today, the main source of nourish- 
ment of all social classes, and especially so of the less well-to-do 
both at Rome, where Ceres also meant “bread,” and at Syracuse, 
where Demeter was 2c7T@, or “yvrain.”! The fable of Menenius 
Agrippa presupposes that the food there spoken of was the sacred 
grain of Ceres. 

In this connection we may also note that, according to the 
Roman tradition, during the first secession the plebs were 
nourished by the mythical Anna Perenna, who is nothing else 
than the symbol of the ever-recurring year. One of her festivals 

t Livy (ii. 32. 10) speaks only of cibus, but Ovid, in Fast. iii. 655 ff., where he 
relates the story of Anna Perenna in connection with the first secession, after 
stating that she offered cibos to Jupiter, continues: “iam quoque, quem secum 
tulerant defecerat illos . . . . victus et humanis usibus apta Ceres.”’ Cf. iv. gor; 
Luc., vs. 152 (Baehrens): “deficit alma Ceres, nec plebes pane potitur,” referring 
to the same fact. See Verg. Georg. i. 7; Serv. ad Georg. i. 7: “Sabini Cererem 
panem appellant;” Terent. apud Cic. De deor. nat. ii. 60: “sine Cerere et Libero 
friget Venus.’”’ Cf. Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 43; Cic. De orat. iii. 167; De deor. nat. iii. 
41: “cum fruges Cererem vinum Liberum dicemus.”” Cf. olvos=Avéyvaos, Hesych., 
s.v. For the fact that Demeter was called 2:7 at Syracuse, see Athen. 
iii. 109 a; x. 416). For the fact that grain was the principal source of nourish- 
ment of the Roman plebs, see Marquardt, Das Privatleben d. Rémer, 2d ed., 
pp. 414 ff. In regard to Sicily, where even today grain is the chief source of nour- 
ishment of all classes, it will suffice to recall that Demeter and Persephone, the 
goddesses of grain, were the chief divinities of the island; see Diod. v. 3. 2, 4. 4; 
XX. 7. 2, Tais katexovoas ZixeNav Beats Ajunrpe cal Képy; Cic. Verr. II; iv. 
106: “insulam Siciliam totam esse Cereri et Liberae consecratam.” 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 249 


occurred at harvest time, and therefore from this point of view 
also she may be considered one of the rural divinities comparable 
to Ceres. At the festival which on the Ides of March was held in 
honor of Anna Perenna on the Via Flaminia near the Tiber, the 
plebs banqueted in the open air, got drunk, and sang obscene 
songs.t It is hardly necessary to recall the close parallel between 
this festival and the one celebrated at Syracuse in honor of Demeter 
and Persephone, during which the Syracusans banqueted out-of- 
doors, and, among other things, it was permitted a’oypodoyetv,? 

It is, nevertheless, probable that the Geloan Telines persuaded 
the plebs of Gela, either by a story of the type of that of Menenius 
Agrippa, or by a distribution of grain or bread.3 Of these two 
hypotheses, the former is perhaps the more probable; but, be 
that as it may, it is clear that the arguments which Telines derived 
from the cult and sacred ceremonies pertaining to Ceres must 
have seemed more persuasive to the plebs than to the aristocracy 
of Gela. 

It seems evident that the same situation existed at Gela and at 
Rome, and we have therefore to deal with two identical facts 
rather than with one single fact, or one single legend. It may be. 
noted that in the same manner in which Telines is said to have 
procured for himself and his descendants the hereditary right to 
the priesthood of the two goddesses, the office of priest to Dis and 
Proserpine had become hereditary in the family of the dictator 
Valerius, who, according to an ancient version known to Cicero 
and to Livy, himself placated the plebs by means of the same 
discourse which the commonly accepted version attributed to 
Menenius Agrippa. 

It is a well-known fact that the cult of Ceres was of Greek 
origin, and that, notwithstanding the Italic name given to the 
goddess, it always remained foreign. Preller, differing from other 


t Ovid. Fast. iii, vss. 523 ff., 675 ff., 695; cf. Meltzer in Roscher, s. v. Anna 
Perenna; cf. Schwegler, op. cit., II, p. 241. 

2 Diod. v. 4. 6. 3 Ovid. Fast. i, vs. 671; iv, vss. 409 ff. 

4 See Val. Max. ii. 4. 5; Zosim. ii. 1 ff.; cf. Miinzer, De gente Valeria, pp. 5 ff. 
This cult of the Valerii, however, takes its origin from Tarentum and not from 
Sicily, as we shall see farther on. 


250 ANCIENT ITALY 


scholars, rightly recognizes that it was introduced into Rome 
from Sicily. As Preller has noted, this appears from the fact 
that in 133 B.c., when by the commands of the Sibylline books it 
was necessary to placate the most ancient Ceres, the decemviri 
sacris faciundis made a journey to Enna. Moreover, when the 
Roman poets sang of the Cerealia and the rape of the goddess, they 
derived their embellishments from Enna and Sicily.* Since, how- 
ever, there are still some who believe that the cult of Ceres and that 
of Dionysus or Liber, who is associated with her, were introduced 
into Rome from the Greek cities of the Hellespont,’ it is not out 
of place to recall that Dionysus was associated with Demeter and 
Persephone, not only in the cities of Lampsacus, Parion, and 
Cyzicus of Asia Minor, but also in Attica, in the Eleusinian fes- 
tivals, at Megalopolis,? at Sicyon in the Peloponnese,* and, accord- 
ing to all probability, also in Sicily.s It may be objected that, 
according to Cicero, the priestesses of Ceres at Rome came almost 
always either from Velia or from Naples,® and that Ceres was 
worshiped with the Attic-Eleusinian rites at Naples, the city which 
succeeded Cumae. It was from Cumae that came the Sibylline 
books which brought about the introduction of the Greek cults into 
Rome.’ It should, however, be noted that Cicero, after stating 
that the priestesses came generally from Velia or Naples, adds: 
“foederatum sine dubio civitatum.”? One understands why, at 
the time of Cicero, Rome should have taken from Velia the priest- 
esses who were to receive Roman citizenship, and not from Syra- 

t Cic. Verr. iv. 108; Ovid. Fast. iv. 419 ff.; cf. Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., 
II, p. 40. 

2 Marquardt-Wissowa, Rém. Staatsverw., III?, p. 362. 

3 Paus. viii. 31. 5. 4 Paus. ii. 11. 3: 

5 Preller, Griech. Myth., 13, pp. 584, 633, 645 ff. Concerning the myths which 
associated Bacchus with Ceres and Proserpine, see Diod. iii. 64; iv. 4; cf. Cic. 
De deor. nat. iii. 58. It is not directly stated that Dionysus was connected with the 
cult of Demeter and Persephone at Syracuse, but it should be noted that, according 
to Cicero (Verr. iv. 128 ff.), the cult of Liber or Dionysus was associated at Syracuse 
with that of Aristaeus, who in his turn was connected with that of Demeter, as may 


be concluded, as it seems to me, from the bee beside the head of Demeter on the 
coin reproduced by Head, Hist. num., p. 160, Fig. 108. 


6 Cic. Pro Balbo 55. 7 Stat. Silv. iv. 8. 50. 


(INNVAOIDOULSVI)) VWNNY 


XI ALV Id 





‘ 
- 
ne 





SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 251 


cuse, which even at his time was considered a hostile city, and was 
among those in the charge of the censors.t We have, however, a 
reference to a public priestess of the Roman people who was of 
Sicilian birth,? and it would be unnatural to suppose that this was 
an isolated fact. The cult of Ceres was practiced in the same 
manner in Rome, in Sicily, and in Greece. That it came to 
Rome directly from Sicily is recognized more or less implicitly by 
various Latin authors,* and is also shown by the passage in Pliny 
where, on the authority of Varro, we read: 


Plastae fuere Damophilus et Gorgasus idem pictores, qui Cereris aedem 
ad circum maximum utroque genere artis suae excoluerant laudatissimi versibus 
inscriptis Graece quibus significarent ab dextra opera Damophili esse, ab laeva 
Gorgasi, ante hanc aedem Tuscanica omnia in aedibus fuisse auctor est Varro.‘ 


Therefore, the artists who ornamented the temple of Ceres about 
493 B.C., according to the commonly accepted chronology, were 
Dorians, and it is natural to suppose that the city whence the cult 
was derived was also Doric. Students of the history of art have 
often thought that the Damophilus mentioned above was Damo- 


t That Syracuse, after its capture by Marcellus, was controlled by the 
censors, I think I have shown in my Alcune osservazioni sulla storia e sulla 
aministr. di Sicilia, etc. (Palermo, 1888), pp. 25 ff. Enna, on the other hand, was 
tithe-paying (see Cic. Verr. II. iii. 100). 

2CIL, VI, 1, 2181: ‘‘Capsonia P. f. Maxima Sacerdos Cereri (sic) publica 
populi Romani Sicula.” 


3 Cic. Verr. II. iv. 99: “sacrarium Cereris est apud Catinensis eadem reli- 
gione qua Romae, qua in ceteris locis qua prope in toto orbe terrarum.” 


4 Cicero (Verr. iv. 114), after stating that the decemviri sacris faciundis went 
to Enna to placate the “‘Cererem antiquissimam,” and that the goddess had her 
seat there, says in connection with the cult of this divinity: ‘‘medemini religioni 
sociorum iudices, conservate vestram; necque enim haec externa vobis est religio 
neque aliena;’”” by which he expressly recognizes the Sicilian origin of the cult of 
Ceres, even though he says shortly after that it was a cult common to all peoples 
(cf. 2btd. 99). This is stated even more explicitly by Valerius Maximus (i. 1. 1), 
who says that the decemviri sacris faciundis went to Enna ‘‘quonian sacra eius 
[i. e., Ceres] inde orta credebantur.”’ Thus Solinus (vs. 14 M.), in speaking of 
Sicily, says: ‘Ceres inde magistra sationis fructuariae. sic ibidem campus Hen- 
nensis.”” For the connection between Rome and the cult of Aetnean Jupiter, see 
Diod. xxxiv. 14. 


5 Plin. N. H. xxxv. 154. 


252 ANCIENT ITALY 


philus of Himera, the teacher of Zeuxis of Heraclea.* It will not 
do, however, to insist too strenuously on this hypothesis, since from 
Arnobius? we learn that the cult of the Greek Ceres was introduced 
at Rome shortly before that of the Mater Deorum, and thus 
toward the end of the third century B.c. This much is certain, 
at any rate, that about 396 B.c. the Carthaginians adopted from 
Sicily the cult of Demeter and Persephone, as an expiation for 
having sacked their temples at Syracuse, and that the priests, as 
at Rome, were Greeks. It would seem that the Etruscans also 
received this cult from Sicily, and it is most natural that the Roman 
plebs should have learned to honor the foremost goddess of the 
island whence from the fifth century on, as we shall see shortly, 
they were accustomed to receive the best quality of grain at a 
relatively low price. | 

From the above it seems probable that the particulars of the 
account of the first secession were taken over from the Sicilian 
legend, which penetrated to Rome together with the cult of Ceres. 
Possibly, together with the first priest, the Siceliot artists may have 
spread the story of the pious and clever Telines. Be that as it may, 
however, it seems certain that, just as the introduction of the cult 
of Demeter at Rome was responsible for the arrival of the Greek 
artists who decorated the temple of the goddess, so it also caused 
the Geloan-Syracusan legend to penetrate into Roman history, 
in the same way in which the introduction of other cults caused 
the penetration of other legends. Of less importance, possibly, 
is the fact that together with the cult of Ceres came the myth of the 
Thessalian Cephalus and his fox-hunt, and that with the cult of 
Juno was connected the Greek legend of Tutela or Philotis.s For 


t Plin. N. H. xxxv. 61; cf. Brunn, Gesch. d. griech. Kiinstler, I, p. 370. 

2 Arnob. Adv. nat. ii. 62. 3 Diod. xiv. 63. 76. 

4 Bugge (Beitrdge zur Erforschung d. etrusk. Sprache (Stuttgart, 1883], pp. 4 ff.) 
would derive this from the inscription Oamr annat, or Demeter Hennensis. 

5 For the legend of Cephalus, see Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., I, p. 43; Griech. 
Myth., 113, p.147. For Tutela or Philotis and Juno Caprotina, see Preller-Jordan, 
I, p. 286. The fable of Tutela or Philotis, who saved the Roman matrons from the 
attentions of the Latins at the time of the invasion of the Gauls (Plut. Rom. 29; 
Cam. 33; Polyaen. viii. 30), is nothing but a Greek legend transplanted into Latium 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 253 


our argument it is worth while recalling that the introduction of 
the cult of Castor and Pollux gave rise to the legend of their appear- 
ance at the battle of Lake Regillus. The legend, as has often been 
noted, is borrowed bodily from the legend connected with the battle 
of the Sagras, fought in the sixth century between the inhabitants 
of Locri and Croton.* It is also worthy of note that the same 
Postumius who in 496, as a consequence of victory in the battle of 
Lake Regillus, is said to have vowed a temple to Castor and Pollux,” 
in the same year, on account of a famine and plague, is said to have 
vowed another to Ceres.3. We shall see shortly why, according to 
tradition, the temple of Ceres was vowed by Postumius three years 
before the secession of the plebs in 493, instead of in 493 itself, in 
which year it is said to have been dedicated by Sp. Cassius.4 In the . 
meantime let us note that, according to the Roman annals, after the 
first secession and the dedication of the temple of Ceres, followed 
the famine which in 491 B. c. caused the sending of an embassy in 
search of Sicilian grain, and also led to the subsequent process 
against Coriolanus, who opposed its distribution to the plebs, and 
finally brought about the condemnation of Sp. Cassius, who in his 
last consulship, in 486, is said to have proposed the distribution of 
such Sicilian grain to the plebs.s Thus the Sicilian grain figures 
in a number of facts which are closely connected in every respect, 
including chronological order. But, just as there is no truth, as 
as the name Philotis shows. Polyaenus narrates similar legends in regard to the 
Milesians when fighting against Naxos (viii. 36) and to the Melians against the 
Carians (viii. 14). Greek and Athenian is also the legend connected with the con- 


struction of the temple of Pietas at Rome, which was dedicated in 191, after the 
victory of Acilius Glabrio at Thermopylae (see Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., II, 
p- 263). 

t Preller-Jordan. Rém. Myth., Il, p. 300. This argument is again treated by 
Albert, Le culte de Castor et Pollux en Italie (Paris, 1883), pp. 8 ff., who shows that 
the cult of these deities was in every respect similar to that attributed to Cyrene and 
to Magna Graecia. 

2 Dion. Hal. vi. 13; cf. the coins of the Postumii Albini, Babelon, of. cit., 
If ps370- 

3 Dion. Hal. vi. 17 (258 B.c.); Tac. Amn. ii. 49. 

4 Dion. Hal. vi. 94; 493 B. C.=261 Varr. 

5 Liv. ii. 33 ff.; Dion. Hal. vi. 94 ff.; vii. 1 ff. 


254 ANCIENT ITALY 


Mommsen especially has shown, in the account of the agrarian 
laws, or better agrarian propositions, of Sp. Cassius, and in that of 
the action and banishment of Coriolanus, so may also the stories 
about the dedication of the temple of Ceres in 493, and the first 
secession of the plebs in the same year, be declared to be false. 

In the first place, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who 
in regard to the founding of Rome follows a reckoning based in 
the main on that formerly accepted by Cato, the first secession 
occurred in 493-92; in 492 the temple to Ceres was dedicated 
by Sp. Cassius;? and in 491 the embassy was dispatched to procure 
grain from Sicily. It is a question from what Siceliot city this 
grain came. Livy has nothing to say on this subject. Licinius 
Macer, Gellius, and many other Roman annalists assert that it 
was sent by Dionysius of Syracuse.* This is a gross anachronism, 
on which account Dionysius, after having noted that Licinius, 
Gellius, and almost all other writers, placed this embassy in the 
seventeenth year after the expulsion of the kings,’ concludes that 
in place of Dionysius should be substituted Gelo, who in 491 had 
succeeded Hippocrates of Gela. He also supposes that in the 
earliest annals reference had been made merely to an embassy 
sent to Sicily, and to a gift of grain made to the Romans by a 
tyrant.® 

It is true that in 492-91 B. C. Gelo succeeded Hippocrates, but 
only in the command of Gela, and it is improbable that grain was 
sought at Gela rather than at Syracuse or Catana, the Roman 
annalists to the contrary notwithstanding. Gelo did not obtain 
control of Syracuse till after 487.7 The two above-mentioned dates 
were often confused in ancient times, and some even asserted that 
Gela became master of Syracuse in Ol. 72, 2=491-g0 B. c.8  More- 

t Dion. Hal. vi. 45 ff. 2 Dion. Hal. vi. 94. 3 Dion. Hal. vii. r. 

4 Dion. Hal. vii. 1: ws Acklymos yéypape cat Téddos kal &ddXoe cuxvol rdv 


‘Pwpualwy cvyypapéwr. 
5 Dion. Hal., ibid., ws obrol re kal of ddd ox Eddy Graves cvyypadeis duoroyodar. 
6 Ibid.: 6 mp@ros év rats xpovoypadlas rotro xaroxwploas. 
7 For the chronology of Hippocrates of Gela and of the Deinomenids at Syra- 
cuse, see Busolt, Griech. Gesch., II, p. 249, n. I. 
8 Paus. vi. 9. 4. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 255 


over, as we know, and as Dionysius expressly states, Fabius Pictor, 
the earliest Roman annalist fixed the year of the founding of Rome 
as Ol. 8, 1—748-47,' and according to all probability placed the 
first year of the Republic in 503-2.?, Subtracting, however, 17 
years from 503, we come to 486, the year following the one in which 
Gelo is said to have commenced to reign at Syracuse. To this 
should be added that in 493-92, the time of the first secession of 
the Roman plebs, Hippocrates of Gela, the predecessor of Gelo, 
came very near obtaining possession of Syracuse on account of a 
contest between the geomori and the plebs.3 But, whether the 
Roman annalists took as their point of departure the first Syra- 
cusan secession of 493 or the second of 487; whether they took the 
year when Gelo succeeded Hippocrates at Gela, or that in which 
he became master of Syracuse, it seems clear that this pretended 
embassy is connected with the history of Syracuse. It seems 
impossible that the first secession, the tribunate of the plebs 
connected with it, the temple of Ceres which is also connected 
with the secessions and with the liberty of the plebs, and, finally, 
the distribution of the Sicilian grain desired by Sp. Cassius, 
the founder of the temple of Ceres, could all have happened 
precisely in the years, or in the year, in which Gelo, priest of 
Demeter and Persephone, and builder of their temple at Syra- 
cuse, obtained possession of that city as the result of a secession. 
We have to deal with no casual, but with an intentional, syn- 
chronism, established by the early Greek or Roman historians, 
who, as we shall see later, were seeking a parallelism between 
the history of Rome and that of Syracuse. This is rendered all 

1 Fab. Pict. apud Dion. Hal. i. 74. 

2 Holzapfel, Rém. Chronologie, pp. 182 ff. There are many difficulties con- 
nected with this and similar questions of chronology. If I limit myself to quoting 
this hypothesis of Holzapfel, it is because his method, in spite of what is said by 
others (such as Soltau), seems on the whole correct. A minute discussion of any 
one of these dates cannot be made without a discussion of the entire chronology 
of the Republic, and this I hope to undertake at some future date. Here it 
would be out of place. 

3 Diod. x. 27; cf. Herodot. vii. 154. 


4It is worthy of note that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who is generally dis- 
posed to believe in the truth of the early history of Rome, notes the synchronism 


256 | ANCIENT ITALY 


the more certain by the consideration that the fable of Menenius 
Agrippa and the story of the first secession of the Roman plebs, 
seem to be a repetition of the tale related in regard to Telines of Gela, 
the city which, between 493 and 487, through its tyrants became 
mistress of Syracuse, and later, through Gelo, became her subject. 

That the temple of Ceres was vowed in 496 by the dictator A. 
Postumius, in the same year in which he is said to have dedicated 
the temple of Castor and Pollux, is in itself improbable. This 
improbability is increased if we remember that the temple of 
Saturn is also said to have been dedicated in 496, and that of Mer- 
cury in 495.2. We know that the temples of the other Greek cults 
which were introduced into Rome as a result of the advice given 
by the Sibylline books were vowed and dedicated at much greater 
intervals and as a result of distinct events. Thus, in 431 a temple was 
dedicated to Apollo, who had hitherto, as it seems, possessed only a 
sacellum in the Flaminian fields. In 2g1 the cult of Aesculapius 
was introduced; after 217 came that of Venus Erycina; and, 
finally, in 204 that of the Mater Deorum.’ 


between the secession of the Syracusan KaAXcx¥ptor in 493-92 at the time of Hippo- 
crates, and that of 493-92 at Rome. In speaking of the first secession, he makes one 
of his characters, Appius Claudius (vi. 62), recall the various secessions in which 
the aristocrats had driven forth the plebs: ws év woAdats Nats Kal TedeuTaia év 
Xvpaxov’cats where the geomori mpds T&v mwedaTGy éfyddOnoav. Dionysius, who 
believes in the historicity of the two events, here proceeds just as he does when he 
asserts that, in connection with the killing of the citizens of Gabii, Tarquin the 
Proud made use, for illustration, of the counsel given by Thrasybulus to Periander 
(Herodot. v. 92), without showing a perception of the fact that one had to deal, not 
with an imitation on the part of Tarquinius, but with the infiltration of an event 
from the history (or pseudo-history) of Greece into the pseudo-history of Rome. 
This error has, however, its useful side. We have already learned from Herodotus 
(cf. Busolt, Griech. Gesch., II, p. 254) that Hippocrates had tried to gain possession 
of Syracuse about 493. The passage just quoted from Dionysius confirms this 
opinion, and, compared with Herodot. vii. 154 f. and Diod. x. 27, shows that both 
in 493 and in 487 we have to deal with the same sedition between geomori and 
kadAxUpio, or between patricians and plebs. 

1 Liv. ii..21; Dion. Hal. vi. 1. 

2 Liv. ii. 21, 27. Livy recounts the same fact twice, according to two different 
versions. 

3See the passages collected by Marquardt-Wissowa, Rém. Staatsverwaltung, 
Ill, pp. 358 ff. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 257 


The legend which connects the mythical victory of Lake Regil- 
lus with the dictator A. Postumius Regillensis, and with the cult of 
Castor and Pollux, is of aristocratic character. Into relation with 
it,and with the cult after 304 at least,must be brought the patrician 
festival of the transvectio equitum.* ‘The cult of Ceres on the other 
hand, as we have stated, was exclusively plebeian. It was most 
natural, and quite in accordance with the tendency of the earliest 
Roman annals, that the plebeian annalists should have attributed 
to the cult of Ceres an origin as old as that of Castor and Pollux, 
which had already been received among the sacra by the patricians 
of early Rome.? One of the two versions given by Livy of the 
dedication of the temple of Mercury in 495 B.c. shows that the 
history of these cults was falsified for partisan purposes. The 
temple could have been dedicated only by a magistrate and not by 
the primipilaris Letorius.3 That the dictator Postumius did not 
really dedicate the temple of Ceres (aside from the reasons for 
supposing him a non-historical character) seems evident from the 
same annalistic tradition which says that the temple of Castor 
and Pollux was dedicated in 484 by the son of Postumius nomi- 
nated expressly as duumvir aedi dedicandae, and that the temple 
of Ceres was dedicated in the same year as the first secession, not by 
this same person, as one would expect, but by the consul Sp. 
Cassius, who in his last consulship, as the tradition goes, had pro- 
posed to distribute the grain from Sicily. 

The statements concerning the consul Sp. Cassius are especially 
important, because he, according to the unanimous Roman tradi- 
tion, perished in an attempt to become tyrant.4 His houses were 
destroyed, and in their place arose the temple of the goddess Tellus, 


t Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., II, pp. 300 ff. 

2 The fact that the cult of the Dioscuri, as is shown by the legend of Lake 
Regillus, came to Rome from Magna Graecia, may have contributed to associate 
the two cults. At Locri, the city which won the victory at the Sagras, the cult of 
Demeter was associated with that of the Dioscuri (cf. Petersen, Rém. Mitth., 1890, 
p- 219). See Kliiber in the Berl. Phil. Wochenschr., 1883, p. 576, for the fact that 
just as in the temple of Ceres were the plebeian archives, so in the temple of Castor 
were other non-plebeian archives. 

3See Mommsen, Rém. Staatsrecht, II , p. 602, n. 7. 

4 Mommsen, Rém. Forschungen, I, p. 173; cf. my Storia di Roma, I, pp. 504 ff. 


258 ANCIENT ITALY 


who became identified with Ceres.t . According to a tradition in 
Livy, the father of Cassius killed his son because he was aiming to 
become tyrant, and from the proceeds of his property dedicated a 
statue to Ceres.? Finally, to the annalist Piso, this same Cassius 
is said to have placed a statue of himself in front of the temple of 
Tellus.3 All of these legends constantly bring Sp. Cassius into 
relation with Ceres.4 It is especially worthy of note, however, 
that while, according to the versions of Livy and Dion Cassius, he 
was consul in 493, the year when he dedicated the temple of Ceres, 
according to another version, known to Valerius Maximus and 
Dion Cassius, he was one of the nine tribunes of the plebs who 
were burned in the forum by their colleague Mucius, because 
they had not abdicated, but had conspired against the liberty of 
the people.’ This tradition, which makes Sp. Cassius a tribune 
of the plebs instead of a consul, presupposes the number of ten 
tribunes. According to Livy and Dionysius, the number of tri- 
bunes, already increased in 471 (= 469), are said not to have reached 
ten until 457 (=455).° But if, with Niese, we consider how 
uncertain were the names and the number of the tribunes which 
tradition records in connection with the first secession, and if we 
keep in mind the fact that Diodorus places the institution of the 
tribunes in the year 466 (Diod. =471 Liv.),’ the year in which 
the Publilian law was approved, and in which, according to certain 
traditions, the number of tribunes was increased,® we must admit 

t Ovid, Fast. i, vs. 671; Horace, Carm. saec. 29; Liv. xli. 28. The temple of 
Tellus on the Carinae was possibly also dedicated to Ceres. Cf. Plin. N. H. 
xxxiv. 15, 30; Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., II, pp. 2 ff.; Marquardt-Wissowa, op. 
cit., p. 586. Cf. Sch Eurip ad Phon. 693, 7 5¢ Ajunrnp cal 1 kadetrar. In the 


temple of Demeter and Kore at Patrae in Achaia was a statue of I'M; see Paus. 
ViL. 21. II. 

2 Liv. ii. 41. 10. 

3 Pison. Frug. apud Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 30; cf. Mommsen, Joc. cit., p. 167. 

4 Cf. the coins of the Cassii with the heads of Ceres, or of Liber and Libera; 
see Babelon, I, pp. 327, 329. 

5 Val. Max. vi. 3. 2; Dion Cass., fr. 21. 1; Zonar. vii. 17; cf. Mommsen, 
loc. cit., pp. 168 ff. 

6 Liv. iii. 30; Dion. Hal. x. 30. 7 Diod. xi. 68. 7; cf. Niese, loc cit. 

8 Liv. ii. 58. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 259 


that the version which made Sp. Cassius a tribune of the plebs 
fixed the date between 471 and 457 B.c. Dion Cassius mentions 
it after having recorded the decimation of the Roman army by a 
certain Appius Claudius in 471, and after the approbation of the 
Publilian law regarding tribal elections and augmenting the num- 
ber of tribunes, but before the consulate of Minucius in 458 B. c.? 

The consul Sp. Cassius and the tribune Sp. Cassius are a 
single individual, whose history, as Mommsen recognized, was set 
forth in two different versions, one patrician and one plebeian. In 
both versions he is closely connected with the cult of Ceres. The 
consul, however, is said to have dedicated the temple of the god- 
dess in 493, while the tribune is not mentioned until after the 
year 471. In this also we have traces of the secessions of the 
plebs,? although the second date must be brought still farther 
forward. According to Diodorus (whom, as a result of the investi- 
gations of Niebuhr and Mommsen, everyone admits to be an 
excellent source, and even superior to Dionysius and Livy for the 
earliest history of Rome), it was not until after the second seces- 
sion which overthrew the decemvirate that they inflicted on tri- 
bunes who would not abdicate the dreadful punishment which 
was meted out to Sp. Cassius and his eight colleagues. This 
second secession is placed by Diodorus in 443 B. c.,3 the year in 
which Livy puts the secession of Ardea, which is in reality a redu- 
plication of the one at Rome.* This argument receives additional 
support from the fact, as Niebuhr and Mommsen both admit, that 
the punishment to which Diodorus alludes was connected with the 
proposed law of Trebonius, which, according to the chronology 
of Varro, was approved in 448,5 but which, according to the Fasti 
of Diodorus, was proposed in 441 B. c.® 

t Dion Cass., loc. cit.; cf. Liv. ii. 59; iii. 25. 


2 Liv. ii. 58. 3: “Volscum Aequicumque inter seditionem Romanam est bellum 
coortum. Vastaverant agros ut si qua secessio plebis fieret ad se receptum haberet.”’ 

3 Diod. xii. 25. 3. 

4See Livy (iv. 9), who repeats the story of Virginia in regard to Ardea. I 


shall later speak of the historical and chronological importance of this reduplica- 
tion of a single legend. 


5 Liv. iii. 65; Mommsen, Rém. Staatsr., II2, p. 267, n. 6. 6 Diod. xii. 27. 


260 ANCIENT ITALY 


Diodorus asserts that in 466 B.c. (=471 Liv.) dua 8é rovros 
mpattouevas év TH ‘Poun TéTe TPwTws KaTLaTAaOncay SypwapyoL. 
That this means, not that the tribunes were then augmented in 
number, as Livy says,' but that the tribunate then came into 
existence, we may admit with Niese; but it does not follow from 
this that the date is historical. It has escaped attention that 
Diodorus speaks of this immediately after narrating the expul- 
sion of the Deinomenid Thrasybulus—an event of the greatest 
importance, not only for Syracuse, but for all the Siceliot cities 
which reclaimed their liberty and re-established democratic govern- 
ment. At Syracuse this glad event gave rise to the institution of 
an annual festival in honor of Zeus Eleutherius, or protector of 
liberty.? ‘ 

This coincidence between the memorable year when Thrasy- 
bulus, the brother of Gelo and Hiero, was expelled, and the event 
which, according to Diodorus, signaled the establishment of the 
tribunate at Rome, is worthy of note. In the same manner in 
which Syracuse freed herself from the tyranny of the Deinomenids, 
the Roman plebs shook off the yoke of the patricians. Unfor- 
tunately, this evidence is similar to that already noted regarding 
the simultaneous introduction of the cult of Ceres at Syracuse 
and at Rome, and, instead of offering material for a consideration 
of the parallel historical and constitutional development of the 
famous Siceliot city, and of the future ruler of the world, it is 
merely a synchronism which was deliberately sought for by an 
annalist who wished to bring the history of Rome into relation 
with that of Syracuse. That the synchronism is not merely 
casual is shown by the fact that in the same way that the legends 
of Menenius and Valerius and the cult of Ceres have a purely 
Geloan-Siceliot origin, the tribunate itself finds a parallel in a 
Syracusan magistracy which we find in force in the fifth century. 

At Corcyra, like Syracuse a Corinthian colony, as early as the 


t Liv. ii 58; cf. Meyer (Rhein Mus., XXXVII [1882], p. 617), who believes 
that the source of Diodorus spoke of the institution of the tribunate in 493. 

2 Diod. xi. 72: kara 6¢ rhv Zixelav dpre karahedupuevys THs év Tals Zupaxovoacs 
tupavvldos Kal wacGv TOv Kata Thy vijsov wbdrewv Hrevdepwuévwv worry émldoorv 
éduBaver  cupmraca Zixedla mpods evdaruoviav. Cf. 76. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 261 


fifth century the plebs were led by wpootdra: rod dyyov, who 
during the secessions deliberated in the name of the people in 
opposition to the aristocratic party.’ At Syracuse, after the time 
of the second Athenian expedition, about 415, we see Athenagoras, 
Tpoatatns Tod dyuov, opposing the propositions of Hermocrates, 
one of the generals of the aristocratic party, and denouncing to 
the plebs the proposals of the aristocratic youths who would not 
brook democratic equality.2 Diocles, the adversary of Hermo- 
crates, seems to have been a leader of the democratic party; and 
so were probably at first also Dionysius and Agathocles, who 
commenced their political career by attacking as demagogues the 
leaders of the aristocratic party. Unless I am mistaken, Laphistius 
and Demenetus too were mpootdtat, It is recorded by Plutarch* 
that, by means of accusations in the assembly, they wished to make 


t Thuc. iii. 75 ff.; iv. 46; Aen. Tact. xi.15. The narratives of Aeneas Tacti- 
cus in regard to Corcyra remind somewhat of the alleged historical incident of the 
plebeian maltreated by his patrician creditor, which Livy vividly relates (i. 23. 3). 
The fact as set forth by Aeneas has a comic touch, and is possibly historical. The 
dramatic emphasis of the Roman historian is certainly the result of late pragmatic 
and pseudo-historical speculation. Another, and certainly historical, fact of this 
nature is found in Plut. Dion. 34. 

2 Thuc. vi. 35. That the rpoordrns rod Siuouv of Syracuse was an institution 
corresponding to the Roman tribunate was noted by Giardelli (Saggio di antichita 
pubbliche siracusane [Palermo, 1887], p. 89), who, however, overlooked the fact that 
the second was derived from the first. The fact that this office appears both at 
Corcyra and at Syracuse leads one to suspect a common derivation from a Corin- 
thian institution, since we find at Corinth the origin of other institutions of her 
colonies. (See Beloch, ‘‘L’impero siciliano di Dionisio,” Atti dei Lincei [Rome, 
1881], p. 17.) At Corinth as elsewhere were naturally ordces, both mwovoror 
and mévytes (see Polyaen. i. 41. 2). At the time of Timoleon the laws of Syra- 
cuse were revised by the Corinthians Dionysius and Cephalus (Plut. Timol. 24; 
Diod. xvi. 82). 

3 This is also the opinion of Giardelli (Joc. cit.). In regard to Agathocles, see 
above; for Diocles, see Diod. xiii. 19. 4; for Dionysius I, see Diod. xiii. gr. 3; 
for Theodorus of Syracuse, see Diod. xiv. 64. In regard to other Greek cities, 
Aristodemus Malacus, tyrant of Cumae, is said to have commenced his career as 
mpootarns Tov Sjuou (see Dion. Hal. vii. 4). 

4 Timol. 37; cf. Corn. Nep. Timol. 5.2. The Syracusan Sosistratus mentioned 
by Polyaen. i. 43, at the time of Hermocrates, seems also to have been a mpoordrns. 
The Snunyopety elwhbres at Syracuse, about 451 B. C., are mentioned by Diodorus 
(xi. 92; cf. xii. 57), who calls the tpoordra: of Corcyra, Tos Snuaywpeiv elwOdres Kal 
paduora Tov Sjuou mpoicrdcbat. 


262 ANCIENT ITALY 


Timoleon give an account of his actions. The conduct of Timoleon, 
as noted by Plutarch, in this regard conforms fairly well with the 
character and duties of the Roman tribunes. Greek authors in 
speaking of Roman events translate literally the expression 
iribunus plebis as 8jwapyos. Nevertheless, Zonaras, abbreviating 
Dion Cassius, although he follows this practice in general, in 
narrating the story of the first secession says that the plebs nom- 
inated two mpootatat.t This means that the ancients had already 
noted the correspondence between the two institutions, the Roman 
and the Greek. 

Must we admit that the Romans derived the institution of the 
tribunate from Syracuse? It seems evident that the office is of 
Greek origin. Just as the plebeian aediles, who, according to’ 
unanimous tradition, came into being at the same time with the 
tribunes,? were in reality an imitation of the ayopavdéuor of the 
various Greek states, and were called ovrayépraz or collectors 
of grain at Heraclea of Magna Graecia,3 or ovrogvAaxes at Sicilian 
Tauromenium,‘ so it seems that the tribunate was an institution 
borrowed from Greece, where the mpoordra: tod Sxmov occur 

t Zon. vii. 15; cf. Dion Cass., fr. 16. 13. Mommsen (Rém. Staatsr., III, 
p-. 145, n. 2), taking into account the fact that the Greeks translated tribunus 
plebis as Sjuapxos, and considering that the title of d4uapxos as head of the state 
occurs only at Naples, is led to the conclusion that the Romans derived the Greek 
name for the tribunes from the Campanian Greeks. This conclusion does not 
seem to me justified. The tribune, in origin at least, was not a state official (Plut. 
Quaest. Rom. 81; cf. Mommsen, Rém. Staatsr., 12, p. 271), and would not have 
taken his title from the highest magistracy of the neighboring city. It seems to 
me that the translation d%uapxos must have been suggested by the djuapyo or 
heads of the Attic demes, whose functions closely resembled those of the tribuni 
aerarii, or leaders of the Roman tribes. The name of the tribunes of the plebs 


could have been derived, as seems to have been the case, from the military 
tribunes. 

2 Mommsen (Rém. Staatsr., II, p. 487) correctly observes: “Dass die steigende 
stadtische Entwickelung Roms sich an die héhere Civilisation Griechenlands 
anlehnte, ist natiirlich;’’ and believes that the aediles after 367 B. c. are an imitation 
of the Greek dyopavéuor. From their very origin, it seems to me, this holds als 
for the exclusively plebeian aediles. ; 


3 Kaibel, Inscr. Graec. Sicil. et It., No. 645, I, 110. 


4Ibid., No. 423. Besides the o:ropt\axes are mentioned the oitwvlo. At 
Syracuse they were termed dyapavduor (ibid. 211). 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 263 


frequently, especially in the Peloponnese at Megara,’ in Elis,? 
and at Argos. And that the institutions relating to the liberty 
of the Roman plebs are really of Greek origin is shown by the 
Greek character of the plebeian cult of Ceres, at whose temple 
there was an asylum. Such an asylum was an institution totally 
foreign to Rome, and the idea involved could not even be expressed 
by a Latin word.* It is even asserted that the various asylums 
in Rome were instituted after the restitution of the tribunate fol- 
lowing the fall of the decemvirate.’ If, then, we are told that the 
homes of the tribunes had to be kept open day and night as a place 
of refuge,° we come to the simple and natural conclusion that the 


t Thuc. iv. 66. 2 Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 27, 30. 

3 See in Aen. Tact. xi. 7, where, just as at Corcyra (ibid. 13 ff.), the mpoord- 
TNS appears as a protector of the plebs against the rich. See Gilbert, Handbuch 
d. griech. Alterth., II, p. 129, for the institution at Tegea in Arcadia. I shall not 
here investigate whether, as the Epirote (see op. cit., p. 3), these mpoordra: were of 
the same nature as the mpoordrat tod djuov, mentioned above, nor whether they 
were protectors of the plebs. The question deserves special treatment, which, I 
hope, will be accorded both this and other problems pertaining to Greek public 
procedure. In like manner I pass over for the present the origin of the name and 
authority of the mpoordra:, who appear to have been the chief magistrates at Gela 
(Kaibel, op. cit., 256; cf. for Agrigentum, ibid., 952); here I limit myself to noting 
that at Athens the lcovoula and isayopia made such an office unnecessary even 
for the humblest citizen. The mpoordrys which was there required by every 
Héroixos was for that important class the same as the mpoordrns rod Siov at 
Syracuse and the tribune at Rome were for the plebs. The points of contact 
between the Attic metics and the Roman plebs are evident. At the end of the 
fifth century the majority of the population of the Siceliot cities was composed of 
foreigners and plebs (5xAos te yap Evuylxrocs wodvavdpovor. ai mbdets, accord- 
ing to Thuc. vi. 17. 2). From Diod. xiii. 84. 4 we learn that about 406 B. c. Agri- 
gentum contained 20,000 citizens and about 180 Kkarotxodvres Eé€vor. These lat- 
ter are to be compared, not alone with the Attic metics, but also with the dedi- 
ticii and applicati who made up a large proportion of the clients and of the Roman 
plebs. 

4 Varr. apud Non., p. 60 L. M. 

5 Cic De leg. agr. ii. 36: “sunt enim loca publica urbis, sunt sacella, quae 
post restitutam tribuniciam potestatem nemo attigit, quae maiores in urbe partim 
periculi perfugia esse voluerunt; haec lege tribunicia xviri vendent.” Early in the 
Republic we find that the right of asylum also existed at the temple of the foreign 
deity Diana, and at that of Vediovis (Lycoreus ?) (see Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., 
I, pp. 155, 264). Possibly the same right existed at the temple of the Furies, 
whither Gracchus fled (see Plut. Quaest. Gr., 16 ff.). 

6 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 81: @omwep uh kal karapvyh Tots deou€évos, 


264 ANCIENT ITALY 


Greek right of asylum was closely connected with the tribunes, 
whose sacrosancta potestas was translated into Greek as ‘epa xal 
aavdos apx7.t Another Greek, and probably Siceliot, trait is 
recognized in the fact that at Rome the tribunate was joined, 
not only with the cult of Ceres, but also with that of Jupiter, in 
the same way that at Syracuse the protecting divinities of liberty 
were Demeter and Zeus Eleutherius, whose cult, according to 
Diodorus, arose in 463, three years after the expulsion of the 
tyrants from Syracuse, and (also according to Diodorus) after 
the institution of the tribunate at Rome.’ 

It should be recalled, finally, that at least after the first century 
B. C., in Rome as well as in those colonies which possessed Italic 
rights, a statue representing Marsyas was the symbol of liberty. 


1 Said by Dion. Hal. vi. 89, in connection with the institution of the tribunate. 
He also states, shortly after, that the property of those who wronged the tribunes 
became sacred to Ceres (see Plut. 7%. Graec. 15, tepdv rov Sjuapxov eivar cal 
dovdov; and cf. the bilingual urban inscription, CIL, VI, 824, ‘‘lepdv kal d&ovdov 
sacrum’’), The name aedilis (see above, p. 245, note 1) likewise shows the sacred 
character of this magistracy, which, like the tribunate, was closely connected with 
the cult of Ceres. For Hermion see Paus. ii. 35; Phot. Lex., p. 212 N. 


2 Zeus Eleutherius, whose cult arose in 463 (Diod. xi. 72), is often represented 
on Syracusan coins (see Poole, Cat., etc., “Sicily,” pp. 184 ff.), and is also found at 
Agyrium and Eryx (ibid., pp. 26, 63). To judge from the coins, this cult became 
very important in Sicily in the fourth century after the undertaking of Timoleon. 
The cult of Jupiter is associated with that of Ceres and Liber (Persephone) in the 
laws of Horatius and Valerius, which, according to tradition, were approved after 
the fall of the decemvirate (Liv. iii. 55. 8; 449 B.C). Moreover, near the temple 
of Jupiter Capitolinus the tribal assemblies met, in which after the law of 471 B. c. 
the tribunes were elected (see Mommsen, Rom. Staatsr., II?, p. 267; III, p. 381). 
The tribunes preserved their documents. in the Capitol (bid., II, p. 282), while, 
according to the laws of Horatius and Valerius, the senatus consulta were preserved 
by the aediles in the temple of Ceres (Liv., Joc. cit., 13). It is worthy of note that 
during the plebeian games (November 4-17) on the Aventine, held, as the ancients 
said, either in memory of the expulsion of the kings, or else “pro reconciliatione 
plebis post secessionem in Aventinum” (Asc. in Cic. Verr., p. 143), occurred the 
epulum Iovis celebrated by the plebs on the Ides of that month (November 13; 
see Preller-Jordan, Rém. Myth., II, p. 227). Moreover, on the Ides of September, 
the time of the epulum Jovis of the patricians, the plebs celebrated the rural festival 
of Ceres (Plin. Epist. ix. 39). 

3 Mommsen, Rém. Staatsr., III, pp. 809 ff. For the connection of the statue 
of Marsyas with the tribunes of the plebs, see Plin. N. H. xxi. 8. Possibly the 
picture of Zeuxis which represented Marsyas bound, and which was exhibited in 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 265 


This custom is evidently derived from a Greek city. In precisely 
the same way, about a hundred years ago, with the spreading of 
the ideas and principles of the French Revolution the practice of 
planting liberty poles became prevalent throughout Europe. 
Marsyas, like Silenus, was one of the followers of Dionysus, and 
was even identified by Herodotus’ with Silenus. The Romans 
seem to have learned the form silanus from the Dorian Greeks 
of Sicily, and it is especially worthy of note that on the coins of 
several Siceliot cities is represented Marsyas or Silenus—a fact 
which can hardly be regarded as anything else than a typification 
of the liberty of democratic government.’ 


the temple of Concord in Rome (Plin. N. H. xxxv. 66), was placed there as a symbol 
of restrained political license. According to Gellianus (Gellius?), the Marsi 
thought their name was derived from the Lydian Marsyas (Plin. N. H. iii. 108). 
This may be a late derivation, and a substitution of Marsyas for Mars; but I am 
inclined to believe that it was based on the cult of Marsyas. A coin of the Umbrian 
Tuder which is later than the fourth century represents Silenus or Marsyas (see 
Garrucci, Mon. d. It. ant., Plate LXXV, Fig. 17). The type of this coin is purely 
Greek; and, since the coins of Tuder show close relations with the shores of the 
Adriatic which were then occupied by Greeks from Magna Graecia and Sicily (see 
below), it is probably not accidental that the coin seems little less than an imitation 
of one from Metapontum reproduced by Garrucci, op. cit., Plate CV, Fig. 35. 

t Herodot. vii. 26. 

2 Silenus and Dionysus occur together as one of the two symbols on the 
beautiful coins of Naxos of the fifth century (see Poole, Cat. Br. Mus., “Sicily,” 
p- 118). From this point of view the Naxian coins are identical with the Roman 
coins of the Marcii of the first century, having on one side the head of Liber or 
Dionysus, and on the other Silenus-Marsyas (Babelon, II, p. 95). Marsyas or 
Silenus riding an ass is represented on coins of Nacona (Poole, op. cit., p. 117) 
and Silenus at Catana (ibid., pp. 42, 49). It is worth mentioning that the proag- 
orus, or supreme magistrate, at Catana at the time of Cicero was called Diony- 
siarchus (Cic. Verr. iv. 50). This name is interesting, not only because at Catana 
the public cult of Dionysus is expressed on the coins (Poole, op. cit., p. 62), but also 
because we have every reason to believe that there, as at Syracuse (Cic. Verr. ii. 
127), the supreme magistrate and priest was selected from certain families which 
had a hereditary right to the position. It seems to me, as to Beloch (op. cit., p. 15), 
that Cicero, in referring to Syracuse with the words “ex tribus generibus,” wished 
to indicate yévn and not ¢vAal, as most modern writers hold. At Crete also the 
kéousot were drawn é« tTiva@y yevdv (Arist. Polit. ii. 7, p. 1272 Bk.). On a 
coin of Himera, and therefore not later than 409, Silenus stands beside a fountain. 
This should be noted in connection with the fact that the Romans gave the name 
of Silani to grotesque fountain masks whence water issued (see Lucr. vi, vs. 
1263). The cult of Silenus seems to have been of special importance in the Pelo- 


266 ANCIENT ITALY 


If we keep in mind what has just been said concerning the 
Siceliot origin of the cult of Ceres at Rome, with the added fact 
that among the Romans Liber, just as Dionysus among the Greeks, 
was associated with the cult of Demeter-Ceres, we understand 
better how Silenus became the symbol of liberty at Rome, and it 
seems less strange to assign a purely Sicilian origin to the tribunes 
and aediles of the plebs, whose intimate connection with the cult 
of Ceres is certain. 

The above will seem strange to those who wish to see in the 
political institutions of Rome an autonomous development with 
little contact with neighboring peoples. Nevertheless, that Greek 
elements had penetrated even into the earliest of Roman institu- 
tions is unconditionally admitted by ancient writers in the case 
of the legislation of the decemvirate, and is also in part admitted 
by some of the most authoritative of modern writers. Mommsen, 
for example, recognizes the Greek origin of the Servian military 
system, and notes the close resemblance between the arrangement 
of the Roman cavalry and that of Attica.t We have also seen 
that he admits the Greek origin of the functions of the aediles 
after 367 B.C. Whoever approaches the study of the earliest 
history of Rome with an unbiased mind, will recognize that, from 
this point of view, the Rome of which we speak was no different 
from that of the last centuries of the Republic or the beginning of 
the Empire. 

The city which already in the fifth century had received the 
cults of Hercules, Apollo, the Dioscuri, Mercury, and Ceres, would 
not have hesitated to receive political and military institutions 
from Greece, in the same way that at a later date it received the 
Phrygian cult of the Magna Mater, and the civic institutions of 
Alexandria. 

The objection may be raised that even if the ancient, and with 
them modern, writers recognize the dependence of a portion of the 
ponnese. At Elis (Paus. vi. 24. 8) he had a temple of his own (cf. Wide, Lakonische 
Kulte (Leipzig, 1893], p- 254), while at other places (Paus., loc. cit.) he was asso- 
ciated with Dionysus. 

t Mommsen, Rém. Gesch., 16, p. 95; Rom. Staatsr., III, p. 253, n. 2. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 267 


political institutions and laws of Rome on those of the Greek 
peoples, there is never any mention of special dependence upon 
Syracusan legislation. Such an objection, however, is not valid. 
When Cicero asserts that certain Roman institutions were similar 
to those of Corinth, we are at once reminded of the fact that Syra- 
cuse was a colony of Corinth.‘ And if Roman tradition admits 
that the legislation of the decemvirate was modeled after that of 
Solon, but makes no mention of what was borrowed from the code 
of Syracuse, it should be noted that in 212 B.c., at the time of 
Fabius Pictor, Syracuse had been captured by Marcellus and was 
being severely punished. It became a censorial city, and on the 
occasion of the process against Verres, Cicero still calls it a hostium 
urbem.?, From the time when they commenced to write their 
own history, the Romans must have felt a certain repugnance 
toward confessing how much they had been aided by the civiliza- 
tion of Syracuse, which during the fifth and fourth centuries had 
been the most powerful and famous of the Greek cities of the West. 
For that reason, possibly, no Roman writer mentions the fact that 
the fribunes and aediles of the plebs were introduced into Rome 
from Sicily; and for a similar reason, or else because of a sincere 
admiration, mingled with an interested benevolence and tolerance, 
as I hope to prove, the Romans exaggerated the influence of the 
constitution of Solon upon their own legislation. That even in 


tCic. De R. P. ii. 36. 


2 Cic Verr. ii. 14; v. 82 ff, 131. With the words ‘‘Syracusanis hostibus’’ he 
opposes the Syracusans of his time to the citizens of other allied and associated 
cities. (See my op. cit. on the Roman administration of Sicily, pp. 76 ff.) The 
objections of Beloch in his otherwise excellent work, La populazione della Sicilia 
[Palermo, 1889], pp. 82 ff., are without value. When Cicero defends the Syra- 
cusans, this is due to the fact (op. cit., p. 75) that he does not defend the inhabitants 
of the censorial city, but rather certain of the many Roman citizens who inhabited 
the capital of the island. Syracuse was the residence of the praetor and the seat 
of one of the four judicial assemblies, and was also the home of many “negotia- 
tores cives Romani.” That she was punished by Rome is strikingly brought out 
by the fact that she was treated as was Marseilles by Caesar, and had her territory 
divided. In the case of Athens this occurred but rarely and to a lesser degree. 
The censorial communes of the Bidini, Acrenses, Megarenses, Herbessenses, and 
possibly also of the Tyracinenses, which were still in existence at the beginning of 
the Empire, were all created at the expense of the territory of Syracuse. 


268 ANCIENT ITALY 


early times, however, they recognized the intellectual superiority 
of Sicily is shown by the fact that they placed in the Curia a statue 
of the Sicilian Empedocles, and also one of Pythagoras.* 


II 


Although in general the sources are silent concerning the 
dependence of certain Roman institutions upon those of Magna 
Graecia and Sicily, in connection with the pretended embassy of 
454 to Athens they admit that the Romans visited the cities of 
Magna Graecia.?__ It should also be noted that after the beginning 
of the fifth century, Syracuse was in a position to exercise great 
influence upon the coast of Latium and Etruria. 

Up to the battle of Himera (480 B. c.) Syracuse had not played 
an important part in the history of the Siceliot and Italiot cities, 
but after Hiero in 474 had destroyed at Cumae the fleet of the 
Carthaginians and Etruscans, she became the first maritime power 
of the western Mediterranean. After the victory of Cumae, Hiero 
seized Ischia and built there a fortress, and after the expul- 
sion of Thrasybulus, Syracuse never ceased to exercise on an 
ample scale her hegemony over the shores of the Mediterranean. 
In 453 (of Diod.=458 of Varro) the Syracusan admiral Phayllus 
laid waste the coast of Etruria as far as Elba, and his successor, 
Apelles, with sixty triremes, not only plundered the Etrurian 
coast, but pushed as far as Corsica and brought Elba under the 
control of Syracuse.4 In 435 and 411 (or 427 and 403) the Romans 
received grain from Sicily;5 and if, as seems probable, the state- 
ment is authentic that in 396 (Varr.=393 Diod.) the Lipareans 
restored to the Romans the tripods which were being sent to Apollo 
as a thank-offering for the taking of Veii,° it should be remem- 
bered that the Lipareans were at that period the allies of Syracuse.? 
The Etruscans, in their turn, were enemies of Syracuse at that 


« For the statue of Empedocles see Diog. Laert. viii. 2. 72; for that of Pythago- 
ras see Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 26. 


2 Dion. Hal. x. 51, 54. 3 Strab. v, p. 548 C. 
4 Diod. xi. 88. Possibly fr. 23 M. of Philistus refers to facts of this nature. 
5 See above, p. 234. 6 Diod. xiv. 93; Liv. v. 28; Plut. Cam. 8. 


7 Diod. xiv. 56. 2; cf. Thuc. iii. 88; Diod. xii. 54. 4. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 269 


time, as they had been in 413. For that reason Dionysius I in 384 
laid waste the shores of Etruria, where he plundered Pyrgi, the 
harbor of Caere, and pushed as far as Corsica. The good rela- 
tions between Rome and Syracuse probably gave rise, as we have 
seen, to the legend that Siculus came from Rome; and even:if there 
is no truth in the assertions of Gellius, Licinius Macer, and many 
other Roman annalists, that Dionysius sent a gift of grain to the 
Romans in the sixteenth year after the expulsion of the kings, they 
at least presuppose the existence of friendly relations between 
Rome and Dionysius at Syracuse. ° 

The influence which Sicily, and especially Syracuse, exercised 
over the coast of Campania, Latium, and Etruria, from the time of 
the battle of Cumae till the fall of Dionysius II (357 B. c.), was cer- 
tainly important. According to one legend, Daedalus and the Thes- 
piades betook themselves to Cumae;? and, according to another, 
Cumae was the metropolis of Tritaea in Achaia.3 This second 
legend shows that Achaeans and Arcadians had established them- 
selves at Cumae. As at Regium and Himera, Peloponnesan ele- 


1 Diod. xv. 14; Ael. V. H. i. 20; Polyaen. v. 2 20; Lucil. apud Serv. ad Aen. 
x. 184. The plundering of the temple of Pyrgi by Dionysius while on his way to 
Corsica is recorded only by Strabo v, p. 226 C. From that period probably dates the 
origin of the Zupaxéovos AywAy on the east coast of Corsica, which is mentioned 
by Diod. v. 13. 3, and Ptol. iii. 2. 4. If we admit the existence of an alliance 
between Rome and Syracuse, we understand better why at that time, or at the latest 
at the time of Dionysius II, the Romans attempted to found a colony on Corsica 
(see Theophr. H. P. V. 9). 


2Verg. Aen. vi. 14 ff.; Sall. apud Serv., ad loc.; Diod. v. 15; Fest., s. v. 
Roma, p. 266 M.; Paus. vii. 22. 8. 


3In regard to Paus. vii 22. 8, I agree with Reitzenstein, Inedita poetarum 
Graecorum fragmenta (Rostock, 1891), p. 10. Moreover, the legend concerning 
Celbidas, the founder of Tritaea is connected with the belief (Paus. viii. 24. 5) that 
at Cumae the teeth of the Erymanthian boar were preserved (cf. Garrucci, Mon. 
dell’ It. ant., Plate LXXXIII, Fig. 23). Tritaea was situated on the slopes of 
Erymanthus. I also agree with Reitzenstein with regard to the Achaean (Arcadian) 
rites as being connected with the Euboean, and as mentioned by the Sibylline 
books, which are said to have come from Cumae. In referring to the sacrifice to 
the Moerae or Parcae, the recently discovered commentaries on the secular games 
(line 90) mention this Achaean rite as connected with the cults imported into Rome 
by order of the Sibylline books. I cannot agree, however, with his statements 
concerning the manner and time of this introduction. 


270 ANCIENT ITALY 


ments may have penetrated to Chalcidian Cumae at a very early 
period,’ but it is natural to suppose that this took place to a much 
greater degree after Hiero and his Peloponnesan mercenaries had 
occupied Cumae and Ischia.?, The legend of Daedalus and the 
Thespiades, who established themselves at Cumae after returning 
from Sicily and Sardinia, evidently arose as a consequence of the 
relations with Sicily, where, thanks to the Rhodian Cretan colon- 
ists of Gela, such myths had become localized. It was from 
Gela that the Corinthian Syracusans finally received, through the 
Deinomenids, the eastern myths which had been inherited from 
these colonists. 

From Sicily likewise the peoples of Etruria received countless 
impulses toward artistic and political advancement. The coming 
of the Corinthian Damaratus to Tarquinii, first for commercial 
and then for political reasons, may well have marked the intro- 
duction of Corinthian vases into Etruria. It is well known that 
from the fifth century on the Dorians of Sicily and Italy exercised 
great influence on the sacred architecture of Etruria, and, unless I 
am mistaken, this influence was no less felt in the case of sepulchral 
architecture. Ancient writers describe with high praise the tomb 
of Porsenna, which was ornamented with many towers and pyra- 
mids. We may form some idea of such tombs from the one of 
Cucumella now seen near Vulci, and the one between Albano and 
Aricia, commonly called the tomb of Aruns. However, this 

t For Regium see, e. g., Antioch. apud Strab. vi, p. 257 C. For the Doric 
element which participated in the foundation of Zancle, see Thuc. vi. 5. 2. 


2 It seems to me evident that the Sicilian myth of Daedalus and Minos, as 
connected with Cocalus, king of the Sicani, arose as a result of the founding of Gela 
by the Cretan and Rhodian colonists. It is worthy of note that the name of the 
Sican king, K#xados, reappears in the Coan name Kéxxados mentioned by Herond. 
Mim. iii. 60 (ed. Crusius). The Siceliot myth concerning the Theban Iolaus is 
evidently connected with the belief that the ancestors of Theron of Agrigentum 
came from Telos, opposite Cape Triopium, and were connected with Cadmus and 
Thebes; see Sch. Pind. Ol. ii. 16. 82. But Aenesidemus, the father of Theron, 
was Geloan, and Agrigentum was also a Geloan colony; from which it appears 
that we have to deal with cults and myths which are connected with the Thessalian 
Argive origin of the Rhodians and Cretans who came to Sicily. Thebes was 
sacred to Persephone (Eurip. Phoen., vss. 494 ff.; cf. Euphor. ad Sch., loc. cit.), 
and so was Sicily (cf. Diod. v. 3. 2). 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 271 


elaborate variety of tomb, ornamented with towers and pyramids, 
was in use in Sicily as early as the beginning of the fifth century, 
and one is even mentioned in connection with Gelo, who died in 
478 B.c.!'| The implements used in the Sicilian game of cottabus 
have been discovered in a tomb, dating probably from the first cen- 
tury, situated near Perugia.” Finally, although the Dionysiac orgies 
which were repressed by the senatus consultum of 186 B. C. were more 
closely connected with Magna Graecia, it may not be out of place 
to note that it was from Etruria that they penetrated to Rome. 


tSee Helbig, “Sopra la provenienza degli Etruschi,” Annali di Corr. Arch., 
1884, p. 147, where he confutes the theory of Milchéfer, who thinks that these 
tombs were derived from those of Lydia. To quote the words of Helbig: “It 
should be remembered that very little is known of the sepulchral architecture of the 
regions which are of the most importance in this research, and that we do not know 
the nature of the mausoleums erected in the sixth centuy B. c. by the noble families 
of Syracuse and Carthage.” Iam pleased to note the correctness of this hypothesis, 
which is substantiated, for example, by Diod. xi. 67, who speaks of the sepulcher 
of Gelo, called ‘‘of the nine towers,’’ which was destroyed by Agathocles. Dio- 
dorus (or rather Timaeus) says that the sepulchral monument was destroyed by the 
Carthaginians, and that the towers were torn down by Agathocles from hatred of 
Gelo; but it is clear that Agathocles, having noticed that the monument had served 
as a base of operations for the enemy, demolished the towers because of the danger 
to the city. Weare reminded of the tomb of Simonides which was used by Phoenix, 
a general of Agrigentum, as a tower in a war against Syracuse (see Suid, s. v. 
Liuwrldys and ’Ewndvydforra:), and of the fate of the tomb of Cecilia Metella in 
mediaeval times. In regard to the pyramids, Helbig cites the one on the road 
between Argos and Epidaurus (Paus. ii. 25. 7). It is more to our purpose to 
recall that at the time of Timoleon (the middle of the fourth century), there were 
erected at Sicilian Agyrium, the native town of Diodorus, tdgovs rupayldwy mod- 
Adv kal peyddwv Siapbdpwv tais gidrorexviacs (Diod. xvi. 83. 3; cf. also the 
pyramidal tombs of horses at Agrigentum, Plin. N. H. viii. 155). Moreover, the 
labyrinth which, according to Varro (apud Plin. N. H. xxxvi. g1), was found in the 
base of the monument of Porsenna, is connected with the legend of Daedalus in 
Sicily and the West, and with his work in Sicily and also in Sardinia where the 
turreted nuraghi were thought of as having been made by him (Diod. iv. 30. 1, 
78). This last tradition arose as a result of the relations which existed between 
Sardinia and Syracuse from the middle of the fifth to the middle of the fourth century. 

2 Notizie degli Scavi, September, 1886. Other facts of this nature might 
be adduced. Cf. also the relation between Etruscan bucchero ware and the 
monuments of the Peloponnesus, which is explained as resulting from Siceliot 
commerce. See Helbig, Annali del Inst , 1884, p. 145. 

3 Liv. xxxix. 9. 1 says clearly: ‘“‘huius mali labes ex Etruria Romam veluti 
contagione morbi penetravit.” 


272 ANCIENT ITALY 


This influence, moreover, was no less felt at Rome itself, as is 
shown by the cult of Ceres. It seems to me, however, that this cult, 
and that of Mercury as well, could not have extended thus far 
before the battle of Cumae. Varro asserts that the temple of 
Ceres was the first at Rome which was not constructed according 
to the rules of Etruscan art and religion.‘ The artists Damophilus 
and Gorgasus who decorated it were Greeks, but we have seen 
that this Damophilus seems to have been from Himera, and that 
he could not have come to Rome until about 450, and not in 493 
B. C., the year in which, according to tradition, the temple was 
erected. It was by no means accidental that the builders of the 
first temple, which was purely Greek in style, should have been 
Doric, and even Sicilian. If Iam not mistaken, this was connected 
with the battle of Cumae (474 B. c.), which, as will be brought out 
more in detail, had the effect, not only of overthrowing the sea- 
power of the Etruscans, but also of substituting the influence of 
Siceliot, and especially of Syracusan, civilization for that of the 
Chalcidians of Regium and Cumae, and that of the Phocaeans of 
Velia and Massilia.2 Thus it was not by mere chance that about 
450 B.C., as a result of the laws of Valerius and Horatius, and 
after the second secession of the plebs and the fall of the decemvi- 
rate, it was established ‘‘ut qui tribuni plebis aedilibus iudicibus 
decemviris nocuisset, eius caput Iovi sacrum esset, familia ad 


tPlin. N. H. xxxv. 154: “ante hanc aedem Tuscanica omnia in aedibus 
fuisse auctor est Varro.” 

2 That the victory of Cumae in 474 B. C. exercised a certain influence on the 
history of Latium is admitted by Niebuhr (Rém. Gesch., II, pp. 233=187 Isler), 
and also by Mommsen (Rém. Gesch., 1°, p. 323), who bases his conclusion on the 
fact that in 474 Veii made a forty-year truce with Rome (Liv. ii. 54. 2). But, 
aside from the fact that the year 474 of Livy does not correspond to the 474 of 
Diodorus—who places the battle of Cumae (xi. 51), it is true, in 474, but who 
records for 469 (xi. 63) the magistrates mentioned by Livy for 474 (of Varro)— 
the truce of forty years’ duration does not seem to me historical. It resembles 
closely the truce of forty years granted Tarquinii in 351 B. C. (Liv. vii. 22.6). The 
first came after the death of the 306 Fabii who were killed at the Cremera by the 
inhabitants of Veii (478 B.c.; Liv. ii. 50); the second, after the killing by the 
inhabitants of Tarquinii of 307 warriors led by a Fabius (Liv. vii. 15. 10, in 358 
p.c.). Apparently we have to deal with a duplication. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 273 


aedem Cereris, Liberi, Liberaeque venum iret.”* Livy adds that 
the same consuls brought it about that the senatus consulta should 
be taken to the plebeian aediles in the temple of Ceres, and that 
in the same year were established the asylums connected with the 
cult of Ceres,? which must have been introduced at about the 
same period. 

In the preceding pages we have noted the legendary character 
of the first secession, which is really a proleptic duplication of the 
second. It should be noted further that the names of the tri- 
bunes mentioned in connection with the Publilian rogation (471 
Varr. = 466 Diod.) are the same not only as those of the pretended 
tribunes of 493, but also as those nominated after the fall of the 
decemvirate in 449. With these facts in mind we are led to the 
following conclusions which, if not certain, at least seem probable. 

As a result of the victory at Cumae, and the subsequent mari- 
time and commercial expansion of Syracuse, the grain from Sicily 
competed favorably with that which in time of famine was imported 
from Etruria and Campania, and which was both inferior in quality 
and of higher price. From the fifth century on Sicily commenced 
to be the cella penaria and nutrix plebis Romanae, as she was called 
by Cato.3 The plebs, who derived the greatest benefit from this 
. importation of Sicilian grain, naturally received from Sicily the 
cult of Ceres, and with the cult arose the temple decorated by 
Sicilian artists. But the essential character of the cult of Ceres 
was the protection of the plebs, and for that reason, just as the 
myth of the Geloan Telines was transformed into the fable of 
Menenius Agrippa in connection with the first secession, and just 
as the Siceliot Silenus became the symbol of liberty, so the Romans 
derived from Syracuse the institution of the tribunes and of the 
aediles of the plebs—an institution which was closely connected 
with Demeter, who both at Syracuse and at Rome represented 
democratic liberty. 

On account of falsifications of the annals it is impossible to tell 
in what year the tribunes and aediles of the plebs were first intro- 
duced. It could hardly have been earlier than 466 B.c., and 

t Liv. iii. 55.8. 2Cic. De leg. agr. ii. 36. 3 Cat. apud Cic. Verr. II. ii. 5. 


274 ANCIENT ITALY 


might easily have been close to 449, or even later. Diodorus fixes 
the fall of the decemvirate and the restitution of the tribunate in 
433-32 B. c.,? and Livy places in 443 the story of the secession of 
Ardea, which is simply a duplication of the Roman secession. We 
come thus to the same years in which the lex Canuleia regarding 
intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was proposed 
(445 B.C.),3 and in which the censorship is said to have arisen 
(443 B.c.).4 These coincidences are more important than appears 
at first glance. The tribune Canuleius did not limit himself in 
445 B.C., to the proposition that marriage be permitted between 
the two classes, but, according to the version of Livy, demanded 
that one of the consuls be chosen from the plebs.’ This proposition 
was not accepted, however, and it was not till 367, according 
to Livy and other authors, that the measure was finally carried.°® 
According to Diodorus, on the other hand, the plebs received 
this concession in 443-42, after the fall of the decemvirate 
and the passing of the laws of Horatius and Valerius.?. We have, 
therefore, to a certain degree, another element in favor of the 
date and theory of Diodorus which in recent- years have been well 
sustained by Niese.® 


t Diod. xii. 24 ff. 

2 Liv. iv. 9; cf. my The Legends of Earlier Roman History (New York, 1905). 
It is evident at first glance that this secession is merely a repetition of the story 
of Virginia and of the second secession of the Roman plebs. 


3 Liv. iv. 6. 4 Liv. iv. 8. S Lav. ivi -1s:2: 


6 Liv. vi. 42.9. According to Burger, Sechzig Jahre aus d. alt. Gesch. Roms 
(Amsterdam, 1891), pp. 188 ff., this occurred as early as 377 B.C. 


7 Diod. xii. 25. 


8 With regard to the character and value of the tradition of Diodoris concern- 
ing the second secession and the laws of Valerius and Horatius, I agree with Meyer, 
Rhein. Mus., XXXVII, pp. 620 ff. I think Niese (Hermes, XXIII [1888], p. 423) 
wrong in accepting this tradition concerning the origin of the plebeian consul. 
The date in Livy referring to this one of the Licinio-Sextian laws is in the main well 
confirmed by the Fabius Pictor (apud Gell. N. A. v. 4), who places the first ple- 
beian tribune twenty-five years after the taking of Rome by the Gauls. This date 
seems correct, although it does not harmonize with the theory of Mommsen (Rém. 
Forsch., Il, pp. 221 ff ), according to which Fabius Pictor was the source of Diodorus. 
I agree, on the other hand, with the greater portion of the article of Niese, which 
shows that the majority of the so-called Licinio-Sextian agrarian laws are really 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 275 


Owing to the inaccuracy of Roman tradition, it is not possible 
to determine the precise value of these chronological data, nor just 
when the tribunate arose. In the final pages of this chapter these 
questions will again be considered. For the moment let us limit 
ourselves to noting that, whatever truth there may be in the history 
of the decemvirate (see below), as a result of its abolition the 
institution of the tribunes of the plebs was not restored from some 
earlier period, but made its first appearance at that time. Tradi- 
tion wished to add dignity to the office by ascribing to it an earlier 
origin than it really possessed. 

An additional argument in favor of the theories advanced above 
is offered by another fact relating to the history of the second 
consulship of Sp. Cassius. According to the unanimous tradition 
of ancient writers, in the same year in which the first secession 
occurred, and in which he dedicated the temple of Ceres, Cassius 
concluded the foedus aequum with the Latins.t Nevertheless, as 
Mommsen has observed, this important event is connected neither 
with the preceding nor with the subsequent happenings.2, Momm- 
sen is led to suspect that the early annalists were silent in regard 
to this foedus, and that a later examination of the document brought 
about its insertion among the events of 493. It seems to me, how- 
ever, that the data connected with this foedus are of very doubtful 
value, although Mommsen believes in the authenticity of the 
document and in the substantial accuracy of the information con- 
cerning it. 

Livy, it is true, speaks in explicit terms of the columna aenea on 
which was incised the treaty of Cassius with the Latins, and Cicero 
declares that he saw this bronze column behind the rostra in the 
forum. The fact is, however, that neither Cicero nor the source of 
Livy saw the original document. During the six months in which, 
after the taking of the city, the forum remained in the possession 
of the Gauls, the treaty in question, together with the other public 
a proleptic duplication of a law of the second century B.c. The objections of such 
writers as Burger (op. cit., p. 187) have little weight. 

t Cic. Pro Balb. 53; Liv. ii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. vi. 95. 

2 Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., Il, p. 159. 


276 ANCIENT ITALY 


documents which were incised upon a material as precious as 
bronze was at that period, must have disappeared.* What Cicero 
saw was a later copy. The bronze column preserved in the temple 
of Diana on the Aventine was likewise a copy, and not the original 
(as Mommsen himself admits). This was still in existence at the 
time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus who tells us that on it was cut 
the treaty between the Latins and King Servius Tullius.2 The 
doubtful historical personality of this king naturally leads one 
to suspect that his name was inscribed on the column only in a 
late copy, which was seen by Dionysius and Varro. 

Similar doubts may be formed in regard to the treaty of Cassius, 
since the very existence of this consul is by no means certain. 
According to one tradition, for example, instead of a patrician and 
consul, he is said to have been a plebeian and a tribune of the people. 
The names of the eponymous magistrates are lacking in the inter- 
national treaties of the Greek republics of the sixth century, and 
seem at times to be lacking even at the end of the fifth century. 
But even if in the fifth century the names of the contracting parties 
were ordinarily signed to the Greek treaties, it is hardly possible 
that as early as 493 B. C. the Roman state was far enough advanced 
to follow this rule closely. The reasonableness of this conclusion 
is shown by the famous question concerning the date of the first 
treaty between Carthage and Rome. Polybius,* as is well known, 

t Schwegler, Rém. Geschichte, I, pp. 19 ff. ‘This document certainly met the 
same fate as did the Twelve Tables, which too were incised on tables or columns of 
bronze and placed in front of the rostra. See Diod. xii. 26. 1; Dion. Hal. x. 57; 
CEMLIV Avie 5.0: 

2 Dion. Hal. iv. 26; cf. Mommsen, Rém. Gesch., 16, p. 216; and my Ancient 
Legends, etc. (New York, 1905), pp. 128. ff 

3 See the early decree from Elis (Rohl, Zuser. gr. ant., no. 110); the laws of the 
colonies of Naupactus of the fifth century (zbid., no. 321) and the treaties mentioned 
by Thucydides v. 47 (421 B.C), 77 (418 B. C.), 79 (418 B.C.). For the opposite 
see Thuc. v. 19, 24 (422 B. c.); CIA, I, no. 8. It is worthy of note that the above- 
mentioned decree from Elis, the oldest Greek international treaty, already shows 
the possibility of text-corruption. Such corruption is attested by Roman tradition 
for the senatus consulta anterior to the laws of Valerius and Horatius: Liv. iii. 55. 


14: ‘“‘senatus consulta in aedem Cereris ad aediles plebis deferrentur quae ante 
arbitrio consulum supprimebantur vitiabanturque.” 


4 Polyb. iii. 22. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 277 


assigns this treaty to the first year of the Republic, and says it was 
made in the year of the consulship of Junius Brutus and M. Hora- 
tius. The Roman annalists, on the other hand, do not speak of a 
treaty between the two states before 348, which is the date accepted 
by Mommsen. In this Mommsen seems to me to be perfectly 
correct, although his theory is rejected by many critics. However, 
even some of those who oppose him recognize that the names of the 
consuls mentioned by Polybius are contrary to the order and 
chronology accepted in the various traditions and in the fasti, and 
that these names did not exist in the document which was trans- 
cribed and interpreted by Polybius. I agree with the many critics 
who hold that Polybius added on his own account the names of 
consuls who were not colleagues.* 

But even if we admit that in the original of the foedus Cassianum, 
and not alone in the copy seen by Cicero, the name of Cassius 
appeared, and that he was consul in 491 and not tribune after 457, 
the dates of 520, 493, and 486 for his three consulships are not 
sufficiently guaranteed. Livy, himself notes that the names and 
chronological series of the magistrates of the first century of the 
Republic were different in the various annals.? There is no 
reason for attaching importance to the fact that these three consul- 
ships appear in the Fasti consolari. To those who make a 
careful study of Roman history it is now well known that even 
when accompanied by ancient documents, and especially for the 
earliest periods, these jasti were compiled at a rather late period, and 
take into account the narrations of even the more recent annalists. 


t Mommsen, Rém. Chronologie, 2d ed., pp. 320 ff. 


2 Liv. ii. 8.5, 18.4, 21. 3 f. (499-05 B. C.): “tanti errores implicant temporum 
aliter apud alios ordinatis magistratibus, ut nec qui consules secundum quosdam, 
nec quid quoque anno actum sit in tanta vetustate non rerum modo sed etiam 
auctorum digerere possis;” 33. 2; iii. 23. 7 ( cf., however, Fasti triumph. for 
459 B.C.); iv. 7. 2, 10. 8; cf. with 22. 7; 16. 4, 20. 5 f., 23. 2: eosdem consules 
insequenti anno refectos Iulium tertium Verginium iterum apud Licinium Macrum 
invenio, Valerius Antias et Q. Tubero M. Manlium et Q. Sulpicium consules in 
eum annum edunt... . sed inter cetera vetustate comperta hoc quoque in 
incerto positum” (434 B.C.); 46.11. Moreover, uncertainties and errors of this 
nature also occur in the following century; see Liv. vii. 42 (342 B.C.); vill. 40 
(322 B. C.). 


278 ANCIENT ITALY 


One is strengthened in the belief that the year fixed for this 
treaty is not authentic (493 B.C.; 491 according to Dionysius; 
possibly 487 according to Fabius) by the fact that in the same 
year Gelo succeeded Hippocrates of Gela, and inaugurated the 
rule of the Deinomenids, who brought the greater portion of Sicily 
under either the direct dominion or the hegemony of Syracuse.* 
According to this, the recognition of the hegemony of Rome over 
Latium would have occurred at the same time as that of the Deino- 
menids over Sicily. But both Sp. Cassius and the Deinomenid 
Gelo were closely connected with the cult of Ceres, and the Roman 
consul was even author of a proposition relating to the distribution 
of Sicilian grain. This leads us to suspect that this synchronism 
is as false as the two just examined, and deliberately invented in 
order to bring the history of Rome into relation with that of Syra- 
cuse. In the same way and for the same reasons the expulsion of 
the Tarquins from Rome was made to coincide with the driving- 
out of the sons of Pisistratus from Athens (509 B. C.). 

If, as Mommsen has already suspected, the accounts concerning 
the pretended agrarian laws and the intentions of Sp. Cassius with 
reference to Sicilian grain are false, we are naturally led to doubt 
the statements concerning the second consulship of Cassius and 
the date assigned to the treaty with the Latins. Mommsen has 
shown that the deeds of Coriolanus are also legendary, and it is 
worthy of note that the name of Coriolanus is associated with 
that of Sp. Cassius and with the importation of Sicilian grain. 
In the same year in which Sp. Cassius is said to have made the 
treaty, Coriolanus is said to have taken Corioli, and to have 
opposed the distribution of the Sicilian grain which later Sp. 
Cassius wished to introduce. We see in this a complex of events 
which are closely connected, and thereby intended to receive mu- 
tual support. ‘They have, however, no serious historical value, and 
it is only necessary to disprove one to show the falsity of the rest.? 


t According to the chronological system of Soltau (Rém. Chronol., p. xxi), 
the treaty of Cassius was made in 491; according to Matzat (Rém. Chronol., II, 
12), in 486 B.C. 

2 See among others, Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., II, p. 136, for the fact that the 
legend of Coriolanus does not belong chronologically to the time of Sp. Cassius. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 279 


The importation of Sicilian grain into Rome had the effect, not 
only of introducing the cult of Ceres and the Greek legends con- 
nected with this cult, but also, if I am not mistaken, of bringing 
into the history of the fifth century the pretended agitation con- 
cerning the agrarian laws. 

Mommsen, whose acuteness of intellect is equaled only by 
his immense learning, has shown that there is no historical value 
in the accounts which have come down to us concerning the 
agrarian laws of Sp. Cassius, Cn. Manlius Capitolinus, and Sp. 
Melius, the three well-known demagogues of the Republic who 
aspired at becoming tyrants; and has noted that the legend of 
Sp. Cassius mirrors the agrarian agitations of the time of the 
Gracchi, and those of Manlius and Melius the internal revolutions 
of the age of Sulla.t It seems to me that Mommsen is in the 
main correct, but that the first material from which these legends 
were constructed, and the dates assigned for the various events, 
were drawn from the history of Sicily. 

Diodorus for the year 454 B. C. (459 of Varro) states that after 
the fall of the tyrants and the establishment of democratic govern- 
ment in the various Siceliot cities, grave public seditions arose as a 
result of the lists of the citizens which had to be compiled, and 
on account of the assignments of land. This was especially the 
case at Syracuse, where a certain Tyndarides, by favoring the 
poor and attracting clients, formed a faction which was ready to 
aid him in becoming tyrant. For this he was tried and condemned 
to death, but on his way to prison was liberated by his partisans. 
In the ensuing sedition the aristocratic party killed Tyndarides 
and many of his followers. Events of this nature, Diodorus adds, 
were of frequent occurrence, and gave rise to the law of petalism, 
which was similar to the ostracism at Athens. This new provision, 
however, proved detrimental to the state, and the city was agi- 
tated by frequent seditions. Petalism was applied to the better 
The reason why it was connected with him, it seems to me, is that the Sicilian grain 
figures in both legends. 

t Mommsen, Joc. cit., pp. 153 ff.; cf. my Ancient Legends of Roman History, 
pp. 204 ff. 


280 ANCIENT ITALY 


citizens (i. e., those belonging to the aristocratic party), and as a 
result those who did not wish to run the risk of exile abstained from 
public affairs, and gave themselves up to easy and sumptuous 
living. The state thus came into the hands of the worst element 
of its citizens (wovnpdérator), who, under the pretext of educating 
the youths in the forensic art, sought to make great gain for them- 
selves. Caring little for harmony and honesty, they stirred up 
the plebs (7a@ 7A7@n), and incited them to sedition (rapayds) and 
political change (vewrepropov). To free the state from this band 
of demagogues and calumniators (Snuaywyev wAnO0s Kal cuKo- 
gavrwv), in 454 B.C. the law of petalism was finally abrogated.t » 

Let us now consider the history of Rome as it has been handed 
down to us for the period between 466 and 454 B.c. In 466 the 
government of the tyrants was overthrown at Syracuse, and in 
466, according to Diodorus (471 of Varro) the popular magistracy 
of the tribunate arose at Rome. In 454 the democratic law of 
petalism was abrogated at Syracuse, and in 454 (Varr.), as a result 
of the abuse of the tribunician power and in connection with the 
processes of the consuls Veturius and Romilius, an agreement 
was reached at Rome between the patricians and the plebs, and 
the commission nominated which was to prepare the material 
for the laws of the decemvirate. The decemvirate, finally, abol- 
ished the popular magistracy of the tribunes.? This strange 
similarity is made more striking by the fact that the calumnies 
of the Syracusan demagogues and the institution of petalism have 
their parallel in the lawsuits brought by the tribunes against the 
patricians, both magistrates and non-magistrates, who in the 
annals are continually represented as lamenting over the calum- 
nies of the tribunes. In every respect the tribunes resemble the 
demagogues, or rather the 7poordrat, of Syracuse.3 


t Diod. xi. 86. 3 ff. 

2 Liv. iii. 31. 7 (454 B.c.): “tunc abiecta lege quae promulgata consenuerat, 
tribuni lenius agere cum patribus: finem tandem certaminum facerent. si ple- 
beiae leges displicerent, at illi comuniter legum latores et ex plebe et ex patribus 
qui utrisque utilia ferrent quaeque aequandae libertatis essent, sinerent creari.” 
Cf. Dion. Hal. x. 51. 

3 It would take too long to quote all of the passages in which the patricians 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 281 


The process of Coriolanus, which, as Mommsen recognized, is 
placed arbitrarily in 491, has a noteworthy parallel in that of Caeso 
Quinctius (461 B.c.). Neither was a responsible magistrate, and 
especially in the case of Coriolanus it is hard to undeistand how 
it was possible for the plebs, who had been in possession of the 
tribunate for barely a year, to have so quickly transformed this 
means of protecting their rights into such a powerful means of 
offense against the patricians.t | The more recent Roman annalists 
sought to conceal the improbability of these narrations, either by 
inventing a series of non-historical particulars in regard to the 
offense of Caeso, or by assigning to the tribunes and plebs rights 
which they acquired only gradually during a long period of internal 
history. Especially in the case of Coriolanus, however, they 
failed to give their narrative a purely historical aspect and to make 
it correct from a juridical point of view. The pretended processes 
of Coriolanus and of Caeso Quinctius, of which one seems a dupli- 
cation of the other, are best explained, if I am not mistaken, by 
supposing them to be infiltrations into the pseudo-Roman history, 
and to be applications of the law of petalism—a law similar to that 
of ostracism at Athens and which struck a blow at the citizens who 
were in the way of the democratic state, even though the elements 
for establishing political guilt were lacking. This supposition 
gains additional probability when we recall that as a result of 
lament the calumnies of the tribunes. See, e. g., Liv. iii. 9. 2. (462 B.C.); Io. 7 


(461 B.C.); 15. 2: “quantum iuniores patrum se magis insinuabant, eo acrius contra 
tribuni tendebant ut plebi suspecto eos criminando facerent” (460 B. C.). 


t For the process of Coriolanus see Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., I, p. 140; Rém. 
Staatsr., II2, p. 288, n. 2. Mommsen asserts that the process of Caeso Quinctius 
is juridically correct, inasmuch as he had offended a tribune (Liv. iii. 11 ff.). It 
should be noted, however, that while according to Livy (iii. 13. 1), Volscius, the 
principal witness in the trial of Caeso which resulted in his conviction, is said to have 
been “‘tribunus ante aliquot annos” at the time when he was offended; according 
to Dionysius (x. 7), on the other hand, he was a private citizen when he was offended 
and tribune when he appeared as witness in the trial. It is true that Livy (iii. 
11. 6) says of Caeso that “hoc duce saepe pulsi foro tribuni, fusa ac fugata plebes 
est,” but Dionysius (x. 5) does not speak of such insults to the tribunes. In short, 
the version of Livy aims at being juridically correct, while that of Dionysius makes 
no pretense at accuracy. In reality Caeso, although a private citizen, was con- 
demned merely because he was against the plebs. 


282 ANCIENT ITALY 


petalism the Syracusans of the aristocratic party retired from 
public life and abandoned the city to base demagogues, and that 
according to Roman tradition, L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, made 
consul in 460 B.c., the year following the exile of his own son 
Caeso, “‘adsiduis contionibus pro tribunali non in plebe coercenda 
quam senatu castigando vehementior fuit, cuius ordinis languore 
perpetui iam tribunis plebis non ut in re publica populi Romani, 
sed ut in perdita domo lingua criminibus regnarent.” On the 
occasion of the exile of his son Caeso, he said: “virtutem, con- 
stantiam, omnia iuventutis belli domique decora pulsa ex urbe 
Romana et fugata esse; loquaces seditiosos, semina discordiarum, 
iterum ac tertium tribunos pessimis artibus regia licentia vivere.’’! 

It would take too long to enumerate the various events connected 
with the discords and tumults which fill the annals of Livy and 
Dionysius, and which resemble closely that which is said concern- ~ 
ing the tapayai at Syracuse. On the other hand, I wish to note 
that the episode of Tyndarides has an exact parallel in the legend 
of Sp. Melius, who about 439 B. c. brought much grain from Etru- 
ria and the harbors of Cumae and Miseum, and thus secured a 
numerous following, by the aid of which he hoped to become 
tyrant. Minucius discovered his plot, and the dictator Cincinna- 
tus, through Servilius, magister equitum, invited him to disculpate 
himself. Melius sought to save himself, first by calling on the 
plebs for aid, and then by flight; but Servilius overtook and killed 
him. In the main the Syracusan event and the Roman legend 
agree perfectly. ‘There is no importance attached to the fact that 
the killing of Tyndarides is referred to about 454 B.c., while the 
legend of Melius is placed by Livy in 439, since, according to the 
same version of Livy, it is associated with a pretended dictator- 
ship of Cincinnatus. This dictatorship of Cincinnatus, however, 
is one of the many duplications of a single event and legend which 
are attributed to about the year 458 B.c. Moreover, the earliest 
Roman annalists do not bring Sp. Cassius into relation with Cin- 
cinnatus.? For our purpose it is sufficient to note that the two 

t Liv. iii. 19. 4 ff. 

2 Liv. iv. 13; Cinc. Al. and Calp. Pis. apud Diod. Hal. xii, rf. Cic. De 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 283 


similar events are placed at about the same period, and that the 
picture given by the annalists of Roman life between 466 and 454 
corresponds too closely in its various aspects with the real and 
historical life of Syracuse of that period. We are therefore justified 
if not in asserting, at least in suspecting, that one is a copy of 
the other. The only element lacking is the eloquence of Corax 
and Tisias, which could not be reproduced in the Roman copy. 
Notwithstanding all his patriotism, Cicero, the great advocate of 
early Roman eloquence, could find no examples of famous orators 
anterior to Pyrrhus, save the Valerii, who by their eloquence are 
said to have checked the plebs in their two secessions.* 

We have little information concerning the internal history of 
Syracuse for the years subsequent to 454. From a speech which, 
according to Thucydides, was pronounced by Athenagoras, 
mpootatns Tov Sypov, about 415 B.C., we learn that, while Her- 
mocrates was seeking to convince the Syracusans of the possi- 
bility of a war with Athens, and exhorting them to ally themselves 
with the neighboring cities, the popular orator declared these 
presages of war idle, and to have been spread merely to divert 
the minds of the plebs from internal questions. From the same 
discourse we learn that at Syracuse there was a party of aristocratic 
youths who aimed at attaining office before reaching the legal age, 
and who would not brook civic equality.2 One seems to be 
reading the account of the pretended Roman history of the period, 
both in regard to the frequent interference of the young patricians, 


senect. 16. For the dictatorship and consulships of Cincinnatus see Ihne, Rém. 
Gesch., I, p. 140 n. 3. Iam not sure it has been noticed that the episode concern- 
ing Cincinnatus and Minucius is merely a proleptic duplication of that regarding 
Fabius Cunctator and Minucius magister equitum of 217 B. C. (Liv. xxii 29). 
This last event is naturally historical, but even it is not free from rhetorical embel- 
lishments, as is shown by the speech of Minucius which contains a version of several 
lines of Hesiod, as was noted by Weissenborn among others. 

t Cic. Brut. 14. 54. The annalists had fewer scruples. Both Livy (iii. 11. 6) 
and Dionysius (x. 5) state that Caeso was eloquent, but by their own confession 
his eloquence consisted in using his fists, and he was unable to quell the confusion 
which reigned during processes. 

2 Thuc. vi. 36 ff.; cf especially 37. 3:7 wédes qudy ddeydnes wey hovxdfe, ord- 
ces 6¢ woddds Kal dydvas ob mpds Tods wodeulous relovas 4 pds alThy dvacpetrat, 
tupavvldas 5¢ ori bre kal duvacrelas adlkous. 


284 ANCIENT ITALY 


such as Coriolanus and Caeso,’? and in regard to the intercessions 
of the tribunes, who are said to have prevented the consuls from 
forming an army, on the pretext that there was no danger of 
incurring the war which the consuls predicted.? 

With the exception of those, especially among my countrymen, 
who on account of preconceived and erroneous patriotic opinions 
are unable to discriminate between truth and falsehood, modern 
critics are almost unanimous in declaring Roman history up to 


t See Liv. iii. 14, 15. 2, 65.5. 

2 See Liv. iii. 10. 11 (461 B.C.): “libertatem populi Romani... . arte eludi, 
quia occidione prope occisos Volscos et Aequos movere sua sponte arma posse 
iam fides abierit, novos hostes quaeri; coloniam fidam propinquam infamem fieri, 
bellum innoxiis Antiatibus indici;”’ 16. 5 (460 B.c.): ‘‘tantus enim tribunos furor 
tenuit ut non bellum, sed vanam imaginem belli ad advertendos ab legis cura 
plebis animos Capitolium insedisse contenderent;” and 24. 1 (459 B. C.): ‘“‘clamant 
[the tribunes] fraude fieri, quod foris teneatur exercitus; frustationem eam legis 
tollendae esse.” Cf. iv. 53 (410 B.C.). 

Even in regard to external history the deeds of the Syracusans resemble some- 
what those related of Rome. Cloelius Gracchus, the leader of the Aequi, was a 
man of great energy and had attained an almost regal position among his people. 
He caused much annoyance to Tusculum, the ally of Rome, and in 458 B. c. (Varr.) 
he surrounded the army of the consul Minucius, who, together with his men, was 
freed by the legendary dictator Quintius Cincinnatus (Liv. iii. 25; Dion. Hal. x. 
22 ff.). This account resembles somewhat that of Ducetius, the leader of the 
Siculi, who, having attained almost regal authority over his people between 459 
and 451, gave much trouble to Syracuse and her ally Agrigentum. The general 
Bolcon, whom he overcame, was punished with death by the Syracusans (see 
Diod. xi. 78, 88. 6, 91 ff.). It is true that Bolcon was killed, while the Roman 
general went uninjured; but it must be remembered that the episode of Minucius 
follows the story of the later and historical Minucius of 217 B. c.—a time when 
conquered Roman generals were no longer punished nor put to death (thus in 216 
the senate went out to meet the defeated Varro to thank him for not having lost 
hope for the Republic—Liv. xxii. 61. 14). The dramatic episode of the defeated 
Ducetius prostrating himself before the altars of the gods, and placing himself 
and his people under the control of Syracuse, recalls vividly the story of The- 
mistocles, who before going to Asia came as a suppliant to the domestic hearth of 
Admetus (Plut. Them. 24); and this scene in turn (Mommsen, Rém. Forsch., I1, 
p- 118) brings to mind the occasion when Coriolanus presented himself to Attius 
Tullius, the Volscian leader. I shall treat elsewhere of the influence of the history 
of Greece proper upon that of the Greeks of Sicily. Be it merely noted here that, 
according to Stesimbrotus of Thasos (apud Plin., loc. cit.), before going to Asia, 
Themistocles is said to have visited Hiero of Syracuse. Thucydides knew nothing 
of this, and the origin of the story is uncertain. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 285 


the fourth century at least false and legendary.t Livy himself, 
much more than many modern critics, was convinced of the slight 
historical value of the narratives up to the time of the capture of 
the city by the Gauls.?_ Possibly his famous statement concerning 
the loss of the earliest monuments pertaining to Roman history, 
which perished during the Gallic invasion, contains an excusatio 
non petita on the part of the annalists from whom he drew, who 
were glad of an opportunity to escape furnishing proofs for so 
many gratuitous assertions. 

The fact is that the early annalists, no less than those of a later 
period, know how to falsify. Just as for the Greeks after Hero- 
dotus and Antiochus, so at least for the first of these annalists 
history was a political product, even though it had originated and 
developed under the influence of Greek history when this had 


t The falsity of the Roman accounts of the agrarian agitations of the fifth 
century is recognized by Poehlmann, Gesch. d. antiken Communismus (Munich, 
1gor), II, p. 474. 

2 Liv. Praef. 6, vi. 1, viii. 40; cf. Polyb. vi. 3. 3. It is to be deplored that 
these fairly explicit passages have not received from Italian critics the attention they 
deserve. The last few years have witnessed the appearance of Roman histories 
and articles on Roman history, in which are accepted as true not only the events 
referred to the fifth century B. c., but even those connected with the regal period. 

As a matter of curiosity, it may be noted here that the legend of Lucretia, 
which is mirrored in that of Virginia, has an authentic parallel in the history of 
Syracuse. The wife of Dionysius I, having been violated by the Syracusans 
during an uprising, freed herself from dishonor by a voluntary death (see Plut. 
Dio. 3). Moreover, it was noted even by Aristotle (Pol. v. 3, p. 1303 Bk.) that 
revolutions were frequently caused by love-intrigues. For similar reasons occurred 
the driving-out of the sons of Pisistratus, reported by a false synchronism as con- 
temporary with that of the Tarquins, and also the coming of the Gauls to Chiusi 
(see Liv. v. 33). 

Still another parallel may be drawn from the case of Valerius Publicola, who 
freed the land from the yoke of Porsenna. Being without a colleague, he exercised 
his power somewhat as a orpatnyds adroxpdrwp, granted the people the right to 
choose another consul, destroyed his own house, was well disposed toward the 
plebs, separated the axes from the fasces, and rendered the consular power less 
terrible by the law de provacatione. This closely resembles the case of Gelo, who 
freed the country from the Carthaginians, pretended to wish to abandon his power, 
and, like Publicola, acquired fame as a humanitarian and friend of the people. 
Even if we make allowance for the many exaggerations with which the character 
of Gelo has been adorned, there is still much truth in that which is narrated con- 
cerning him. Is Publicola likewise a historical character ? 


286 ANCIENT ITALY 


become an opus oratorium rather than a literary practice. Even 
before the introduction of historical falsehoods for artistic reasons, 
they were used to strengthen the pretensions of the state, and were, 
to use a phrase of Livy, a salubre mendacium. ‘Thus Fabius, a 
Roman senator and the first historian of his country in point of 
time, acted like a good patriot when he borrowed from neighboring 
peoples the events and glorious deeds which he inserted into the 
history of his own country, just as much as when he went to Delphi 
to consult the oracle after the defeat at Cannae. 

But just as there is no falsehood which does not presuppose 
some real fact which it has more or less hidden and distorted, so the 
Roman annalists, in creating a history which they did not possess, 
did not manufacture the events out of whole cloth. The lack of 
originality of the human mind would not lead us to expect this at 
any period, and especially not from the Romans, who had much 
less ability in that direction than the Greeks. They therefore 
frequently borrowed from the history of neighboring peoples, 
localizing and adapting the facts to suit their own conditions.* 
It is a well-known fact that in the same way many stories and 
legends of Greece proper had been localized and adopted by the 
various Greek colonies, and that the Romans followed their ex- 
ample is obvious, as may be seen from the preceding pages. Such 
borrowing, moreover, did not occur in the case of political history 
alone, but also in literature and art. From Greek poetry that of 
the Latins borrowed not only its inspiration, but also its substance, 
characters, situations, similes, metres, and at times even phrases. 
Every student of classical philology has noted how much in each 
of these respects Catullus, Vergil, and Horace owe to the poets of 
Greece, even when they appear to have other events in mind. 
The same is true in the case of the fine arts. It will suffice to recall 
that the Tuscan order is merely an awkward imitation of the Doric, 
and that the Etruscan urns and coins imitate well-known Greek 
types. 

It will be of aid for our purpose to apply to the peoples of central 
Italy that natural psychological procedure according to which 


t See the first chapter of my Storia di Roma. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 287 


the history of one country is taken as a model for that of another. 
The famous tomb discovered by Francois in 1847 near the banks of 
the Fiora, in the territory of Vulci, shows that the history of the 
Tarquinii, of Caelius Vibenna, and of Masterna or Servius Tul- 
lius, was conceived in exactly the same manner as that of Achilles, 
the avenger of the death of Patroclus, and as that of Eteocles and 
Polynices.t The events of the Greek legend are depicted in 
parallel groups which correspond entirely with the events of the 
Etrusco-Roman history or pseudo-history. Thus it is evident that 
from the third century, before which period the pictures must date, 
as a result of Greek commerce and politics the Etruscans were 
accustomed to represent their history in a manner analogous to 
that of Greece. We have a later trace of this psychological process 
in certain traditions relating to the legend of Coriolanus. As 
ancient writers have noted, his story, especially in regard to his 
death, was deliberately falsified in order to obtain a perfect parallel 
with the story of Themistocles, with whom Coriolanus was held 
to correspond.? 

Among the places which in this manner exercised great influ- 
ence upon the writing of Roman history, Sicily and Syracuse were 
the foremost, especially after the battles of the Himera (480 B. c.) 
and of Cumae (474 B.c.). This condition lasted till 357, when, 
with the overthrow of the tyranny, of the second Dionysius, Syra- 
cuse commenced to decline and pale before the transient splendor 
of Tarentum as ruled by Archytas, or even till 289, when with 
Agathocles the last of her glory came to an end. During this 
entire period Syracuse was the most powerful of the Greek cities 
of the West. Her ships controlled the Mediterranean, and Diony- 
sius and Agathocles were among the most powerful princes of 
their time. The history of the famous city even after 289 was 

t See Annali d. Inst., 1859, pp. 325 ff., Plate M; cf. Gardthausen, Mastarna 
oder Servius Tullius (Leipzig, 1882), who, in an otherwise excellent article, wrongly 
attributes historical value to the paintings of myths merely because they represent 
the opinions of the auctores Tusci instead of those of the Roman annalists, although 
their authority is not superior to that of common tradition. 


2 Cic. Brut. 41 f.: “‘consessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis;” cf. Momm- 
sen, Rém. Forsch., pp. 115, 118, 146. 


288 ANCIENT ITALY 


written by such an able and famous historian as Timaeus. Her 
deeds were on the lips of everyone; and to a certain extent 
might be said of Syracuse in regard to the West what Pericles said 
of Athens, viz., that she was the mistress of Greece, and that her 
laws served as examples for other states.* 

Unfortunately our knowledge of the early history of the Siceliot 
cities is very fragmentary. That we know something more of 
Syracuse at the time of Gelo, Hermocrates, Dionysius I, and 
Hannibal is due to the intervention and wars of Carthage, Athens, 
and Rome. Had fate preserved the histories of Philistus and 
Timaeus, or even those of Callias and Silenus, we should doubtless 
have been in a position to establish the origin of the greater portion 
of the pseudo-history of Rome of the fifth century—a pseudo- 
history contrasting vividly with the scarcity of references for a 
large portion of the true history of Rome for the two succeeding 
centuries. If I am not mistaken, however, even in its fragmentary 
state enough of Siceliot history has come down to warrant us in 
asserting that this pseudo-history is in part a duplication and locali- 
zation of the history of Sicily. 

We cannot now ascertain how much of this pretended history 
had become localized at Rome at a very early period by means of 
the cults, how much was invented by Greek writers such as Timaeus 
and Silenus, and how much, finally, owes its origin to analogies 
in the history of the two countries which were noted by the early 
annalists, such as Fabius Pictor and Cincius. It seems permissible 
to assert, however, that this, in general, is what happened; and, 
unless we are mistaken in this particular instance, it seems certain 
that the cult of Ceres, and the tribunate of the plebs connected with 
it, came from Syracuse, and that this fact furnished a handle for 
the parallel chronological development of the two institutions. 
The cult of Ceres, moreover, does not seem to have been the only 
one which came from Sicily. To it should possibly be added that 
of Mercury. Certainly, at a later period the Romans imported 
from the island the cult of Venus Erycina; and possibly the very 
doctrine of the Indigitamenta had its origin from the same source 


1 Thuc. ii. 37, 40. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 289 


from which sprang the doctrines set forth by Empedocles of Agri- 
gentum.' In an excellent article, Beloch? has noted many points 
of contact between the political institutions of Dionysius and 
those of Rome; such, for example, as the military colonies and the 
confederate states. Whether or not these resemblances are acci- 
dental we cannot at present determine. At any rate, just as at 
the time of Dionysius, so during the ensuing period down to Agath- 
ocles and Hiero II, Syracuse stood in close relations with Latium;3 
and on that account we are not surprised to find other points of 
contact in the history of the two countries for the period after the 
fifth century. 

The complete subjugation of the Latins and the admission of 
Campania on the part of Rome fell, according to Diodorus, in the 
same year in which occurred the death of Timoleon (337 B. c.)4 
—a man who had devoted all his energies to freeing a part of 
Sicily from the domination of Carthage, and who three years before 
had made an alliance with the Romans.’ We have here another 
synchronism, and one which occurred at a period which for all 
three peoples is perfectly historical, and is therefore, in substance 
at least, authentic. From the fifth century on, Syracuse had 
important and continuous relations with the maritime regions of 
central Italy, and in addition often drew upon Campania for mer- 

1 For the statue of Empedocles brought from Agrigentum and set up before 
the Curia at Rome, see Diog. Laert. viii. 2. 73. 

2 Beloch, op. cit., pp. 12 ff. 


3 Two treaties between Carthage and Rome are cited by Polybius (iii. 24, 
25). The second of these, at any rate, falls in the fourth century ,and speaks of 
Roman navigation about Sicily. Moreover, Postumius, called the. Tyrrhenian, 
in 339 B.C. entered as a friend the port of Syracuse with a fleet of twelve ships, 
but was killed by Timoleon for pirating (Diod. xvi. 82. 3). Varro (D. R. R. ii. 
10. 11) states that in 300 B. c. barbers came for the first time from Sicily to Ardea. 
It is curious to note that the Romans, in this case wrongly, thought they owed to 
Sicily one of their fundamental domestic and political institutions—i. e., that 
of the patrons, which is in reality common to both Aryan and non-Aryan races. 
The eponymous IIdrpwv of patrons who came to Latium with Evander (Plut. 
Rom. 13, 14) is, I think, the same as the Idrpwv of Aluntius, the companion of 
Aeneas (see Dion. Hal. i. 51). 

4 Diod. xvi. 90. 2=340 B. Cc. according to Liv. viii. ro ff. 


5 Diod. xvi. 69=348 B. Cc. according to Liv. vii. 27. 2. 


290 ANCIENT ITALY 


cenaries in her wars against Carthage. She must naturally, there- 
fore, have been on her guard against this new and extraordinary 
increase in the power of Rome. As has been noted by Niese, 
among others, Duris, the historian of Agathocles, spoke of the 
victory of 295 B.c. at Sentinum.' It should be added, however, 
that the Romans were not indifferent to the relations which existed 
between Agathocles and the Etruscans, Samnites, Iapygians, and 
Peucetians.? In the same year in which Agathocles tried to regain 
for Syracuse the maritime hegemony which had been lost in conse- 
quence of the civil wars succeeding the death of Timoleon, the 
Romans, by the foundation of the maritime colonies of Suessa 


t Dur. apud Diod. xxi. 6. For Callias and his mention of Rome, see above, 
p- 238, note r. 


2 For the fleet of eighteen ships sent by the Tuppyvol to Syracuse, see Diod. 
xx. 61. These Tyrrhenians were hardly the inhabitants of Caere who in 353 B. c. 
had been deprived of half of their territory by the Romans (see Dio. Cass., fr. 30, 
ed. Melber; cf. Liv. vii. 20. 8), and still less the inhabitants of Antium who after 
338 B. c. had become Roman subjects (Liv. viii. 15. 8). It is true that even after 
this time the Antians continued their piratical practices (Strab. v, p. 232 C.), but 
in this case aid on the part of the state is evidently meant, and this could not 
come from the Antians, whose warships had been destroyed. On the other hand, 
we know that between 312 and 294 the Romans were continually at war with the 
Etruscans (Liv. ix. 29 ff.; x. 5. 10), the friends of Agathocles in 310 (Diod. xxi. 3). 
At that time Rome was friendly to Carthage, with whom in 306 (Liv. ix. 43) 
she had made a second or third treaty. This alliance was sincere, since both 
had common interests of expansion, the one in Sicily, the other in Italy, to the 
detriment of the preponderance of Syracuse. In 306, however (Diod. xx. 79), 
Agathocles made peace with the Carthaginians, renounced his claims on the Punic 
territory of Sicily, and attempted, as had Dionysius before him, the conquest of 
Bruttium. Had he lived longer, and succeeded in his undertaking, he would of 
necessity have come into conflict with the Romans, as did Alexander of Epirus a 
few decades later. On the other hand, since Diodorus (xxi. 3) mentions the 
Tyrrhenian allies of Agathocles in connection with the Ligurians and Celts, it 
seems more natural to suppose that they, together with the Etruscan ships, came 
from some Etruscan city not far from Liguria. This might have been Volaterrae 
(Liv. x. 12), or still more probably Pisa. The maritime importance of Pisa has 
been brought out, if not by Timaeus (Geffcken, op. cit., pp. 44, 148), at least by 
writers who flourished shortly after the period in question (see Lycophr., vss. 
1355 ff.). For the Samnites see Diod. xx. 11; for the Peucetians and Iapygians, 
ibid. xxi. 4. Such questions as the above were overlooked by Schubert in his 
Geschichte des Agathokles (Breslau, 1887). It is curious to note that, according 
to Lydus (De mens. i. 19; cf. De mag. i. 22), the Roman trabea was derived from 
Agathocles. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 291 


and Pontia in 312 B.C.,? by the creation of the duoviri navales 
(311 B.C.),? and by their naval operations along the southern 
shores of Campania (310 B. C.),3 guarded themselves against the 
Samnite allies of Agathocles, who at this period (310 B. c.) in his 
expedition against Carthage took with him mercenaries hired 
from the Samnites. Agathocles had to keep close watch on the 
progress of Rome as well as of Tarentum. This latter city more 
or less openly aided the Samnites in their operations against Rome, 
and tried to prevent the Romans from conquering Naples and 
Luceria.4 The old and perennial state of hostility between Agath 
ocles and Tarentum was certainly one of the causes which led to 
the defeat of the Samnites between 320 and 290 B.c., and which 
enabled the Romans to found their colonies of Luceria (314 B. C.) 
and Venusia (291 B.c.). Moreover, we know that in the last 
years of his adventurous life Agathocles seized Corcyra, made 
alliances in Epirus, and in general followed the Adriatic policy of 
Dionysius I, including, among other things, the forming of a league 
with the inhabitants of the Apulian coast. On this account it does 
not seem accidental that in the very year in which the death of 
the dread Syracusan tyrant occurred, the Romans should have 
secured a foothold on the Adriatic and have founded there the 
colonies of Castrum Novum, Sena Gallica, and Adria (289 B. C.). 

It seems to me that this and the preceding synchronisms have 
hitherto been overlooked. The relations, now friendly, now hostile, 
between Syracuse, Latium, and Campania were probably much 
more important than would appear from the scanty tradition which 
has come down to us, for which reason we seem justified in holding 
that the legislation and political system of Syracuse exercised 
influence on Rome in the fourth century as well, in the same way 
and for the same reasons that Rome later learned from Alexandria 
certain measures pertaining to city administration. Thus, in 
modern times, the English constitution introduced in the seven- 
teenth century served (and still serves in part) as a model, first for 


t Diod. xix. 101=313 B. C., Liv. ix. 28. 
2 Liv. ix. 30. 4. 3 Liv. ix. 38. 
4 Liv. viii. 25, 27 (cf. Dion. Hal. xv. 5. 10), 29; ix. 14; Diod. xx. 1904. 


292 ANCIENT ITALY 


France, and later for a large portion of the civilized nations of 
Europe. That Rome after the middle of the fourth century was 
called a wéds “EAAnvés is due not only to the fact that Greek navi- 
gators were hospitably welcomed at Ostia and Rome, but also to 
the facility with which the future mistress of the world adopted 
outside institutions.‘ This is proved by the coins of Greek types 
which Rome commenced to strike about that period,? and also by 
the censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus, the at once kindly, 
cultivated, and terrible Roman, in whom, as we shall see, it is not 
difficult to recognize an imitator of such statesmen as Dionysius I 
and Archytas. 

In regard to the narration of the deeds of the Romans, the 
Siceliot historians could not have been less active in the fourth 
century, when they wrote of the Greek cities on the Campanian 
confines, than in the following century, when Campania belonged 
to Rome. A rather striking example of this seems to me to be 
offered by the story of the taking of Rome by the Gauls. From 
Polybius, the chief source for this event, we learn that Rome owed 
her safety to the Veneti who invaded the territory of the Gauls.3 
Both Livy and Diodorus, moreover, state that after capturing 
Rome the Gauls pressed as far as Apulia.4 Certainly the memory 
of this could not have been preserved in the Annales Maximi, 

t Heraclides Ponticus, a contemporary of Plato and Aristotle in speaking 


(apud Plut. Cam. 22) of Rome when captured by the Gauls, calls it a r6Acv ‘EAA nvlda.. 
This was said, not by a merchant, but by a philosopher in a discourse ep! pux fs. 

2T accept, in the main, the data concerning the origin of Roman coinage of 
Samwer, “‘Geschichte des alteren rémischen Miinzwesen,” Numismatische Zeit- 
schrijt, Vienna, 1883. He is followed by Milani, “‘Aes rude, signatum e grave,” 
Rivista italiana di numismatica, pp. 18 ff. The Pegasus which figures on the 
bronze quadrilaterals assigned by Milani to the second half of the fourth and 
the beginning of the third century, is, I believe, a type derived from Syracusan 
coins, just as in the middle of the fourth century the figure of Pegasus on the coins 
of Regium, Terina, and Locri was derived from Syracuse. See Imhoof-Blumer, 
“Die Miinzen Akarnaniens,” Numismatische Zeitschrift, Vienna, X (1883), p. 6. 
For the aes grave with Sicilian types see below, p. 294, note 1. 

3 Polyb. ii. 18. 3. 

4 Diodorus (xi. 96; 387 B.C.) speaks of the invasion of Apulia by the Gauls 


in connection with the taking of the city. Livy (vi. 42. 8; vii. 1. 3, 26. 9; 349 B. C.) 
refers to it in connection with the wars fought by the Gauls in 368 B.c. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 293 


which dealt merely with facts relating to the city, nor in the oral 
tradition of the people, since the accounts refer to distant countries 
with which Rome did not come into contact till several generations 
later.? 

We know, on the other hand, that the capture of Rome by the 
Gauls is spoken of by Greek historians, such as Aristotle and 
Theopompus. The memory of the facts involved had of course 
been preserved by Greeks, and very probably, we may add, by 
Siceliots. In the years immediately following the taking of Rome 
(i. e., between 385 and 384 B.c.) Dionysius I not only laid the 
foundation for a colonial empire on the Adriatic, where he made 
allies of certain Epirote leaders, and where he founded Pharus 
and Lissus, but he also, ably profiting by the loss which the Gallic 
invasion had inflicted on the Etruscans on both sides of the Apen- 
nines, plundered the harbor of Caere and pushed on with his ships 
to Corsica, the shores of which were then in the power of the 
Etruscans, especially those from Caere.? He also founded Syra- 
cusan colonies on the coast of Picenum and Venetia, at Ancona, 
and at Adria, where he reared his famous horses, and whither he 


1 Cf. Liv. viii. 25 (326 B.c.): “Lucani atque Apuli, quibus gentibus nihil 
ad eam diem cum populo Romano fuerat, in fidem venerunt.” This would be 
still truer of the Veneti, with whom the Romans could not have had any direct 
and constant political relations before the beginning of the ensuing century. 


2 Diod. xv. 13 ff.; Strab. v, p. 241 C.; see above, p. 268. This important 
subject has never received the attention it deserves. To give a single example; 
no attention has been paid to the statement of Arist. (Pol. i. 4. 7, p. 12559 Bk.), 
to the effect that a certain Sicilian at the time of Dionysius bought up all the iron 
éx T&v odnpelwv and sold it to the merchants who came from the various markets, 
so as to gain the modest amount of roo talents for every 50 spent. Dionysius 
allowed him to keep the money, but expelled him from Sicily. At the time of 
Aristotle the ratio of silver to iron was as I to 2,000 (see Busolt, Griech. Gesch., 
I, p. 202), which shows that an enormous amount of iron had been brought to 
Syracuse. Since, however, at that period Elba was the only place in the West 
possessing such rich iron mines, we are led to the probable induction that when, 
in 384 B.c., Dionysius made the expedition against Caere and its subject Corsica 
he held Elba for some length of time, just as the Admiral Apelles had done when 
he brought Elba under the control of Syracuse in 453 B.C. (Diod. xi. 88. 5). 
Probably also the revolt of Sardinia against Carthage in 379-378 (Diod. xv. 24) 
is to be connected with this expedition, and with the war against Carthage which 
was recommenced by Dionysius in 383 B. Cc. 


294 ANCIENT ITALY 


relegated Philistus, his former counselor, who in that region wrote 
at least a portion of his histories.‘| In the same manner, we know 
that about 358 B.c., the time when the Gauls infested Apulia, 
Dionysius II founded there two colonies.?, The historians of 
Syracuse more than of any other city had occasion to record these 
various events. This is shown by a statement of Trogus Pompeius,3 
who says that while Dionysius was waging war on Regium, 
the Gauls, who had shortly before burned Rome, sent envoys to 


tSee Holm, Gesch. Siciliens, II, pp. 440 ff., for the references in ancient 
writers to the Adriatic colonization of Dionysius I. For Philistus and his writing 
at Adria, in addition to Plutarch (Dion. 11), cf. Pausanias (i. 13. 9), from whom 
we learn that he wrote the portion of his history referring to Dionysius (cf. Dion. 
Hal. Ep. ad Pomp. 5; Cic. Ad Q. Fratr. ii. 11. 4); cf. also Theopompus, frr. 140 ff.). 

It should be noted in this connection that the aes grave found between Pe- 
rugia and Todi, with the triquetra on one side and a trident on the other (see Gar- 
rucci, Le monete d. It. ant., Plate LIV, Fig. 7), is explained by the fact that Sicily 
was wrongly identified with the Opivaxpia of Homer. It was said that Sicily 
was thus named (i. e., Thrinakria) 4 6re tpets Adxpas exec 4 bre Opivaxl éoriv 
duola (Steph. Byz., s. v.). Garrucci thinks (0p. cit., p. 29) that the aes grave 
is from Ancona (cf. also the coins with triskeles in Garrucci, Plate XLV, Fig. 4). 
Thus the Dionysus which figures on the aes grave of Atria Picena (Garrucci, 
Plate LX, Fig. 6; Plate LXI, Fig. 1; note the Pegasus of Fig. 2) is of Syracusan 
origin. Even today the upper valley of the Vomano above Atria at the base of 
the Gran Sasso d’ Italia (the Mons Fiscellus) is called Val Siciliana, although we 
are in doubt as to whether the name is of ancient origin. Certainly the name 
of the region above Tivoli, termed “Sicilian,” is ancient, and possibly also 
the name Goirano dei Siculi on the confines of the Paeligni and Marsi. All 
of these names recall the words of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ii) where 
he says that the presence of the aboriginal Siculi (we should call it Siceliot 
influence) was attested in various parts of Italy by localities termed ZeKxedexd. 
These localities, however, probably derived their names at a period anterior 
to the fifth century, after the great commercial and political expansion of 
the Siceliots. The influence of the aes grave of Atria Picena is shown on 
the aes grave of the Umbrian Tuder (Garrucci, Plate LV, Fig, 2; Plate LVI, 
Figs. 3, 4). When Pliny (NV. H. iii. 56), following more or less closely ancient 
sources, says that the Siculi were the earliest inhabitants of Latium, and repeats 
the same thing in regard to Picenum and Umbria (iii ff.), it is clear that we have 
to deal, not with two distinct traditions relating to indigenous peoples and to late 
Siceliot colonies, as has been asserted, but with two traditions arising from an 
analogous cause. The Siceliots of Ancona are responsible for the indigenous 
Siculi of Picenum. 


2'Diod. xvi:.§. 33°10. 2: 
3 Iust. xx. 5. 4; vi. 6; Freeman, Hist. Sic., IV, p. 219. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 295 


Dionysius with offers of friendship and alliance, which the tyrant 
gladly accepted. He might employ them either in the van of his 
armies or against the rear of his enemies. With the Gauls as 
allies the war was carried on as if just commenced. To inquire 
into the direct source of Trogus Pompeius, and to discover whether 
he depended on Timagenes or on Theopompus, has for the moment 
little interest for us. It is more important to note that the syn- 
chronism between the siege of Regium by Dionysius and the taking 
of Rome by the Gauls is probably derived from some Siceliot his- 
torian, just as was the other between the year of the death of 
Timoleon and that of the annexation of Campania by the Romans. 
Both this synchronism and also the use made by Dionysius of 
Gallic mercenaries are found in Diodorus,’ a Sicilian writer whose 
source for the history of his country, as everyone knows, was 
mainly Timaeus. The chief source of Timaeus, even though he 
himself denies it, and also of Theopompus for the history of Diony- 
slus, was certainly Philistus.2. In none of the fragments of Philis- 
tus, it is true, is there any mention of Rome. Nevertheless, since 
in the books before the one in which he commenced to speak of 
Dionysius, Philistus treated of the Samnites and Tyrrhenians,3 
and discussed the deeds of his leader which had to do with 
the peoples of central Italy, it is clear that he could not have 
been silent concerning Rome. Antiochus, his predecessor, had 
already written of Rome, and it was from him that Philistus 
derived and developed the theory regarding the coming of the 
Siculi from Latium.¢ 

The synchronism between the siege of Regium by Dionysius 


tDiod. xiv. 113: KaQ’ dv dé Kxaipdy pwddrota ‘Pryiov érodtdpxer Acovicros, 
oi Karowkoovres Ta wépay T&v "AXwewv Kedrol. Cf. xv. 1 C.; Polyb. vi C. Holz- 
apfel (Rém. Chronologie, p. 111) thinks that this synchronism is derived from 
Timaeus. For the Gallic mercenaries see Diod. xv. 70. 


2 Fl. Ios. C. Apion. 3. 3 See Philist., frr. 39 ff., Miiller. 


4 Since Philistus (apud Dion. Hal. i. 22) says that the Siculi were Ligurians 
who had been driven out by the Umbrians and Pelasgians, he is evidently the author 
of the theory, accepted by the Romans, that the earliest inhabitants of Latium 
were Ligurian Siculi (see Fest., s. v. Sacrani, p. 321 M.). The mention of the 
Umbrians is noteworthy as coming from such near neighbors. Their Pelasgians, 
finally, were the Etruscans or Tyrrhenians of Hellanicus (see Dion. Hal. i. 28). 


296 ANCIENT ITALY 


and the taking of Rome by the Gauls shows the way in which the 
source of the others that we have mentioned must be sought. To 
this same source, it seems to me, may be traced all of the few facts 
extraneous to the history of Rome which are preserved in the first 
ten books of Livy. The fact is that such synchronisms refer 
exclusively to the history of Campania, Magna Graecia, and Sicily. 


t Thus we have in Livy mention of the early power of the Etruscans and 
of the origin of the Gauls (v. 33. 3); of the introduction of scenic games from 
Etruria and then from Campania (vii. 2); of the pseudo-embassy of 491 to Sicily 
and of the embassy of 432 (iv. 25. 4, 41. I; iv. 52.6). In addition to these, the 
following synchronisms may be noted: 

I. Liv. iv. 25 (433 B.c.): the demand for Sicilian grain. 

II. Liv. iv. 29. 8 (431 B.c.): the first Carthaginian (Athenian P=427 B. Cc.) 
invasion into Sicily. 

III. Liv. iv. 37. 1 (424 B.C.): the taking of Capua by the Samnites=Diod. 
xii. 31 (438 B.C.). 

IV. Liv. iv. 44. 12 (420 B. c.): the taking of Cumae=Diod. xii. 76 (421 B. c.). 

V. Liv. v. 28. 2 (394 B. C.): the capture by the Liparian pirates of the tripod . 
which the Romans were sending to Delphi=Diod. xiv. 93 (393 B. C.). 

VI. Liv. vi. 42. 8; vii. 1. 3, 26. 10 (368, 366, 349 B.c.): the invasion of 
Apulia by the Gauls. 

VII. Liv. vii. 25. 4 ff. (349-348 B. c.): the Greek fleet (which Livy believed 
to be Sicilian) off the coast of Latium; see below, pp. 345 ff. 

VIII. Liv. viii. 3. 7, 24; ix. 17 (341-327 B.C.): the undertakings of Alex- 
ander of Epirus in Magna Graecia, and his death. (As we know, Livy also 
gives the date of the founding of Alexandria, and, as in the case of the Egyptian 
Alexandria, is several years out of the way—c. 335-332 B. C.) 

IX. Liv. x. 2 (303-302 B. C.=Diod. xx. 103 ff., 303 B. c.): the undertakings 
of Cleonymus, the enemy of Agathocles, in Apulia and among the Veneti. (A 
portion of this account depends on Paduan sources.) 

A complete study of the origin and value of these synchronisms, and of others 
not noted by Livy, but which may be derived from the references to plagues, 
famines, etc., would require a detailed treatment of the earliest Roman chronology. 
I wish here merely to point out the error of Unger (‘‘Rémisch-griechische Syn- 
chronismen,” in the Sitzungsberichte d. Miinch. Akad., 1876, p. 592) in stating 
that certain of these, such as those concerning the deeds of Alexander of Epirus, 
were added gratuitously by Livy as a result of his reading of Greek authors. More- 
over, the subject has not been sufficiently probed by Matzat (Rém. Chronologie), 
who recognizes the Greek origin of the synchronisms in Livy (cf. I, p. 211), but 
draws back when it comes to the mention of Theopompus (ibid., p. 138) and the 
synchronism concerning the siege of Regium and the capture of Rome by the Gauls. 
In this Matzat is too much influenced by the passage in Pliny (N. H. iii. 57): 
“Theopompus, ante quem nemo mentionem habuit, urbem dumtaxat a Gallis 
captam dixit.” These words, however, do not show that Theopompus named the 
year of Rome’s capture, and Matzat has overlooked the fact that Pliny is here in error 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 2977 


Livy naturally owes his information to Roman sources, but these 
in turn were doubtless derived from Siceliot writers. In the second 
half of the fifth century Campania became Oscan, and Magna 
Graecia at about the same time was invaded by Lucanians, and a 
century later by the Brettians. It is therefore allowable to suppose 
that some Siceliot rather that Italiot historian followed in the 
footsteps of Antiochus and Philistus in comparing the history of 
central Italy with that of Magna Graecia and Sicily. What we 
know concerning Timacus corresponds with the supposition that 
he was one of the historians whom we are seeking. 

From Cicero we learn that Timaeus as well as Philistus was 
read and esteemed in the first century B.c., and the very polemic 
of Polybius against him shows how he was read and admired in the 
preceding century, in which the Roman annals commenced. 
These annals followed the lines laid down by the histories 
of Greek origin, which had by that time become falsified and 
rhetorical. 

Timaeus was certainly studied by Varro and Vergil, for the 
history of Rome and Italy, and it is more than probable that he 
was also drawn upon by the earliest annalists, who wrote about a gen- 
eration after the appearance of the history ofthis learned and elo- 
quent Siceliot historian. Timaeus connected the origin of the Gauls 
with Sicily, saying that they were descended from the Sicilian 
Cyclops and the nymph Galatea. The explanation of this tradi- 
tion is found in the alliance which Dionysius formed with the 
(see above, p. 233, note 3), since Rome had already been mentioned by Antiochus 
and Damastes. We know, on the other hand, that Philistus took the chronology 
into consideration, since in his history of Sicily he used as a criterion the chrono- 
logical list of victors in the Olympic games (see Steph. Byz., s. v. A¥Jun), and with 
pretended chronological exactness indicated the passing of the Siculi from Italy 
(i. e., Latium) to Sicily in connection with the Trojan war, with the words: Xpévos 
pev ths dvaBdoews [see Dion Hal. i. 22] Hv Eros dydonxocrdy mpd Tod Tpwikod 
modhéuov. Possibly the éydonxooréy is an error caused by confusing 7’=8o0 with 
mwéumrtov, and we have to deal with an Olympiad and a calculation made by Hel- 
lanicus (ibid.), who placed the arrival of the Ausonians guided by Siculus in the 
mwéuntw €rec after the coming of the Elymi to the island. Be that as it may, Phi- 
listus made use of synchronisms in the history of Sicily which had to deal with 


Latium, just as did the Siceliot source of Thucydides (possibly Antiochus), who 
calculated more vaguely by generations. 


298 ANCIENT ITALY 


Gauls in the fourth century.*. Moreover, if not from Timaeus, at 
least from some other Sicilian historian is derived the statement of 
Appianus that Celtus, Galas, and Illyrius were the children of 
Galatea and Polyphemus, and that, having left Sicily, they gave 
their names to the regions in which they settled. In regard to the 
Illyrians, it is enough to remember that they were allies of Diony- 
sius I, and that with them is closely connected the Syracusan 
colonization in the Adriatic.? Besides, Timaeus boasted of the 
great care which he took in writing the history of the barbarian 
peoples of the West, and we have already noted that he visited 
Latium and Rome. 

We naturally expect to find such synchronisms as those enu- 
merated above in a writer who paid much attention to chronology, 
and who called attention, even if on the base of false and erroneous 
scientific speculation, to the synchronism between the founding of 
Carthage and that of Rome, which is mirrored in the legend 
of Vergil concerning the arrival of Aeneas at Carthage and in 
Latium. Whoever may have been the historian who first noted these 
various synchronisms, he was certainly a Sicilian, and his example 
was followed by Fabius Pictor and the earliest Roman annalists, 
who gave the name of Siculi to both the Volscians and to the 
earliest inhabitants of Latium. 

Even if it were true that in ancient Latium and the regions of 
central Italy there existed localities recalling the name of the 
Siculi, this would not prove an early emigration of the Siculi from 
Latium, such as the disjointed statements of Antiochus and Philis- 
tus might lead one to suppose. The report of Antiochus that 
Siculus was an exile who came from Rome has about the same 
value as that of Pythagoras, who makes him a citizen of Rome. 
This latter version is also given by pseudo-Epicharmus.3 

These theories, as we noted at the beginning, could have been 
derived only by Sicilian writers. They were connected originally 
with Antiochus of Syracuse, who stated that the eponymous 
Siculus of the Siculi came from Rome, and were developed by 

1 Tim., fr. 37 in Miiller, F. H. G., I, p. 200; cf. IV, p. 640. 
2 App. Iilyr. 2; cf. Diod. xv. 13. 2. 3 Plut. Num. 8. 10. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 299 


other Siceliot writers, such as the Syracusan Callias, who said that 
Latinus was the king of the aborigines (or of the Borigoni), and 
Silenus of Calacte, the contemporary of Hannibal, who was read 
and quoted by Cicero and Livy, and who located the Hyperboreans 
at Rome.’ The Romans transformed into “aborigines” the words 
‘“‘Hyperboreoi”’ and “ Boreigonoi” which the above-mentioned his- 
torians had used to indicate the peoples of central Italy, the 
modern Borini. Roman tradition, from the time of Cato on, 
asserts that the Siculi were driven out from Latium and the coun- 
try of the Volscians by the aborigines.? This theory is doubtless 
connected with the doctrine of Philistus, who asserted that the 
Ligurian Siculi were driven from Italy by the Pelasgians and 
Umbrians,? whom some writers identify with the aborigines.‘ 
That the Romans from the very beginning of their chronicles, 
or from the time of Fabius and Cato, accepted such doctrines is 
not explained merely by the literary development of Sicily, which 
from the fifth to the third century produced the principal historians 
of the West. The main reason lies in the great political and com- 
mercial expansion of Syracuse from 474 on, and especially at the 
time of the Dionysii. Thanks to this expansion, not only Brut- 
tium, which was thought to have been the early home of Siculi 
even by the writers of the fifth century,s but also Metapontum, 
t See Call. apud Dion. Hal. i. 72; Fest., s. v. Roma 266 M.; cf. Silen. apud 
Sol. i. 15, p. 9 M. Zielinski (Bopelyovo, in Xenien der 41ten Versamlung deut- 
scher Philologen, etc. [Munich, 1891], pp. 41 ff.) has shown that the aborigines 
were the Bopelyyovot of Lycophron (vs. 1253); that this Greek form preceded 
the Latin; and, finally, that Bopelyovor or Bopevyevets is a conception analogous 
to that of ‘““Hyperborean.” Even today the peasants who come down from the 
Abruzzi to pass the winter on the plains lying toward the Tyrrhenian Sea are 
called Borini. Moreover, the aborigines, the earliest inhabitants of Gaul accord- 
ing to the Greek Timagenes (apud Amm. Marc. xv. g. 3), are the same as the 
Hyperboreans mentioned by Herac. Pont. (apud Plut. Cam. 22; cf. Liv. v. 37. 2) 
in connection with the Gauls who took Rome. Probably those who localized the 
Siculi and aborigines in Latium and among the Volscians are the same as those 


who localized them among the Gauls, who also, as we have seen, were thought 
to be of Sicilian origin. 


2 Cat., frr. 5, 7, Peter; Dion. Hal. i. ro ff.; Fab. Pict., fr. 2, Peter. 
3 Philist. apud. Dion. Hal. i. 22; see above p. 295, note 4. 4 Dion. Hal. i. 13. 
5 Thuc. vi. 2. 4; Polyb. xii. 5.6. That the tradition in Thucydides deserves 


300 ANCIENT ITALY 


Croton, and Tarentum, were regarded as Sicilian, and the same 
was said of Buxentum, Palinurus, Cumae and Procida, and of 
Sinuessa on the Volscian confines.‘ Although the form and 
thought appear disconnected there is no real error of diction in the 
words of Festus when he says: ‘‘Maior Graecia, dicta est Italia 
quod eam Siculi [i. e., the Siceliots] obtinuerunt.”? Certainly at 
the time of Dionysius all of Magna Graecia, Tarentum included, 
recognized more or less the hegemony of Syracuse, and the expres- 
sion “‘the two Sicilies”’ is not entirely a product of mediaeval times. 

Since the Syracusans exercised such important control over 
the entire coast of southern, central, and even northern Italy, and 
had colonies in Corsica, among the Veneti, and on the coast of 
Umbria and Picenum, and factories, or allied and almost subject 
cities, on the Tyrrhenian side, we are not surprised at the theories 
regarding the Siculian origin of the inhabitants of Picenum, | 


credence is shown by the proper name of Zckacvla in an early inscription of Poli- 
castro (Rohl, Inscr. Gr. ant., No. 544). 

«See Steph. Byz., s. v. Ivgfois, Hpoxdrn (cf. K¥un), Zuvbdecoa. For Pali- 
nurus see Horace, Carm. iii. 4. 28. Livy (x. 21; 296 B.c.; cf. Plin. N. H. iii. 59) 
says that Sinuessa was a Greek city, called Sinope before the Roman occupation 
(and the statement may be true, inasmuch as the Greeks adopted native names 
according to the character of their own language). It is interesting to note that 
the neighboring Saltus Vescinus recalls the Sicilian Uessa, and that the Volscian city 
Ecetra is paralleled by the Sicilian Echetla (see above, p. 237, note 4). For Meta- 
pontum év Zixedlg, see Apoll. His mir. 2. For Tarentum, see Suid. (s. v. &cAo- 
tévov ypauudriov), where he says that Philoxenus, having fled from the quarries 
év Tdpavte ris Zexedlas, did not accept the invitation of Dionysius I to return 
to Syracuse. Tarentum was an autonomous city, but could be called Sicilian for 
the same reason that the sea between Greece and Sicily, although entirely Ionian, 
was called Siculian (see Polyb. i. 42. 4; x. 1. 2; Eratosth. apud Plin. N. H. 
iii. 75). Tarentum may have looked askance at the power of Syracuse at the 
time of Dionysius I (see Polyaen. v. 8. 2), but had nevertheless, to recognize her 
superiority, and in part her hegemony, as is shown, for example, by the relations 
between Archytas and Dionysius II (Aristox. apud Athen. xii, p. 545 a; Euph. 
ibid. xv. 700d); by an account relating to the Pythagoreans of Tarentum (see 
Iambl. De vit. Pyth. 189 ff.); and especially by the existence of at least two Syra- 
cusan colonies in Apulia. ‘Tarentum and Syracuse seem to have enjoyed friendly 
relations in the fourth century. The fact that the Tarentines were suspicious of 
Agathocles, who had been their leader, was one reason why this friendship did 
not endure till the end of that century and into the third, and why it was even 
easier for the Romans to subdue them separately one after the other. 


2 Fest, p. 134 M. 


SICELIOT ELEMENTS IN EARLY ROMAN HISTORY 301 


Umbria, the Volscian territory, and Latium, nor that the Gauls 
who invaded Italy and became allies of Dionysius and of Syracuse 
were considered descendants of mythical Sicilian characters. For 
analogous reasons the Phocaeans had already evolved the theory 
concerning the Lydian origin of the Umbrians and Etruscans, and 
had transplanted the Bebryces from Asia Minor to Spain. From 
like motives the Rhodian founders of Gela localized in western 
Sicily the Solymi who dwelt in the mountains back of Rhodian 
Phaselis in Asia Minor... Similar reasons, too, gave rise to the 
theory regarding the Trojan origin of the Latins. In the same 
way, as a result of the above-mentioned political circumstances, 
the history of Sicily and Syracuse became a model for that of Rome. 
Nor is this all. Just as in the language and cults of the Romans 
there exist traces of Ionic as well as Doric influence, so in the 
formation of the pseudo-political and constitutional history of 
Rome, in addition to Sicily and Greece proper, the Ionic and 
Doric cities of Magna Graecia exercised their influence. The 
extent of this we shall endeavor to trace in the following paper." 

t In regard to the influence of Syracuse on the coast of Etruria, the frequency 
with which Syracusan coins are there found should be noted. It would be useful 


to have accurate statistics of finds of this nature on the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian 
coasts, both of Siceliot and of Italiot coins. 


: a ee 
ae ee Pee 


a a 
ee a 


a 





XXI 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 
IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF ROME 


t 


It has often been affirmed that the written history of a people 
is exactly according to its deserts; but such a statement is true only 
in part. It is not always easy to distinguish how much of any 
human action has been either recorded or forgotten, as the case 
may be, on account of the virtue or the vice of the one performing 
it. Nor does tradition always represent faithfully the most note- 
worthy events of the world. In general, it tells us much less than 
we should like to know. We are very well informed of the idle 
life of certain emperors, but know little enough of certain great 
thinkers and statesmen. A wealth of detail has been handed 
down to us concerning more or less imaginary heroes, such as 
Romulus and Theseus, but we are not able to form an adequate 
idea of philosophic and political doctrines which have recreated 
human knowledge and civilization. 

Such is the case in regard to the early history of Latium. 
We possess scattered legends telling us of kings and of heroes, 
but these, strictly speaking, have no historical or chronological 
value. Only rarely, and in the most fragmentary manner, are 
we informed concerning the origin and development of Italic 
civilization, and of its contact with the civilization of Greece and 
its colonies. In spite of this, we are now in a position to assert that, 
contrary to the statements of several ancient writers, the Roman 
people did not develop their own military, administrative, and 
juridical organizations. As a matter of fact, they took them over 
by slow degrees from the various peoples with which they came in 
contact, and which had preceded them on the road toward civiliza- 
tion. No one is now ignorant of the fact that even that great 
body of civil law for which we are so greatly indebted to the Roman 


393 


304 ANCIENT ITALY 


people, represents a series of stratifications which in the final 
analysis lead us to those great oriental monarchies where history 
had its origin. 

To determine how much of the Egyptian and Babylonian 
civilizations was transplanted and spread along the coast of Asia 
Minor, and contributed either to form or to transform the Greek 
spirit, constitutes one of the vastest and most difficult problems of 
history. There exist certain elements which would aid in attempt- 
ing a solution, and it is to be hoped that Egypt, which daily sur- 
prises us by discoveries of inscriptions and papyri, will some day 
enable us better to understand the references of classic literary 
tradition, in which we find constant allusion to such relations, but 
containing data which we are not always able to check, and there- 
fore to value properly. 

This, however, is a digression. Our present task is to formu- 
late a problem which, though smaller, is no less worthy of atten- 
tion, namely: How much did Greek influence, as it spread along 
the shores of Italy, contribute to modify, or to create, the civiliza- 
tion of the Romans ? 

The influence of Greek upon Latin civilization may be divided 
into three great periods. The-first teachers of the Romans—not 
to mention the impulses received from the Phoenicians of Utica, 
Carthage, and Sicily—were the Greek colonists along the shores 
of southern Italy and Sicily. These were succeeded by Greece 
proper, and, last of all, by the Hellenistic cities, especially Alex- 
andria and Pergamum. It is not my purpose at present to set 
forth the importance of each of these relations, and especially 
those of the last period. To doso would require a volume. Since, 
however, there are many among us who believe that the Romans 
derived both their laws and their customs from the Greeks, it 
should be stated that without a proper study of the Alexandrine 
age, it is possible to understand neither the art and poetry of the 
time of Ovid and Catullus, nor the application of those mechanical 
principles which enabled the Romans to erect their colossal struc- 
tures during the imperial age. 

Roman civilization, far from absorbing them blindly, rejected 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 305 


more than one of the elements of Greek science. For example, 
witness the proud disdain with which a Roman scholar observes 
that his fellow-citizens had been very careful not to introduce and 
practice the results of medical science. The few Romans who 
had made themselves famous in this branch of learning were 
regarded, observes this writer, as deserters, and to some extent as 
Greeks. And yet this despised learning had created, not only 
the doctrines of the school of Hippocrates, but also those of 
such Italiots as Alcmaeon of Croton and Heraclides of Tarentum, 
and had already produced numerous physiologists and anatomists, 
followers in the footsteps of Erophilus and Erasistratus. Instead 
of nourishing itself on vain theoretical disquisitions, or on simple 
empiricism, the science of medicine in Alexandria had adhered to 
the experimental method, and had even practiced vivisection on 
the bodies of criminals. 

Roman writers, intent upon recording the military virtue 
and political triumphs of their own race, began only at a late 
period to recognize and praise the literary achievements of the 
conquered Greeks. But while conceding to Greece a literary 
and artistic supremacy which they would hardly have been able to 
deny, they were always loath to admit how much they owed the 
Greeks with respect to political and military science.? This 


1 Plin. N. H. xxix. 16 ff.: “solam hanc artium Graecarum nondum exercet 
Romana gravitas, in tanto fructu paucissimi Quiritium attigere, et ipsi statim ad 
Graecos transfugae.” 

2 Although in a few cases Cicero does not hesitate to confess the superiority 
of Greek over Latin culture (e. g., Pro Archia 23; Pro Flacco 62; Tusc. iv. 4), 
on other occasions (the passage De orat. i. 197 represents merely the opinion of 
one of the interlocutors of the dialogue) he shows himself persuaded of the supe- 
riority of Roman culture; e. g., Tusc. i. 1: “sed meum semper iudicium fuit 
omnia nostros aut invenisse per se sapientius quam Graecos, aut accepta ab illis 
fecisse meliora, quae quidem digna statuissent in quibus eleborarent. nam mores 
et instituta vitae resque domesticas ac familiares nos profecto et melius tuemur et 
lautius, rem vero publicam nostro maiores certe melioribus temperaverunt et 
institutis et legibus. quid loquar de re militari? in qua cum virtute nostri 
multum valuerunt, tum plus etiam disciplina.” But this is the same Cicero who 
in the same work (Tusc. iv. 4), after declaring that Appius Claudius was a Pythago- 
rean, says: ‘multa etiam sunt in nostris institutis ducta ab illis, quae praetereo, 
ne ea, quae repperisse ipsi putamur, aliunde didicisse videamur.” The real point 
was touched upon by Cicero himself where (Tusc. ii. 5) he exhorts the Latins to 


306 ANCIENT ITALY 


repugnance was still felt at the time of Cicero, the great creator of 
Latin literature, although he was very well aware how much Rome 
owed to Greece, and to what extent during the preceding two 
centuries Greece had dominated, with the arts of civilization, over 
her proud conqueror. It was much more keenly felt, however, 
at an earlier period, when Rome barely deigned to glance at the 
works of art, and at the literary and philosopic doctrines, of a 
conquered people—art and doctrines which she was not as yet able 
to appreciate fully. 

Notwithstanding this studied demeanor, the traces of the 
influence of the conquered over the conqueror emerge very clearly, 
and this not only at a relatively late epoch, when Rome had come 
into direct contact with Greece proper, but also at a more remote 
age, when the hellenizing of the Latins was furthered more especi- 
ally by the Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily. 

The invasion of the Sabine races, which soon barbarized the 
coast of Magna Graecia, and which took place at about the same 
time that the writing of history began to flourish among the 
Italiots, together with the increasing prosperity of the cities of 
Sicily, especially Doric Syracuse (after the battle of the Himera, 
480 B. C.), makes it less difficult for us to trace the numerous politi- 
cal and literary relations which existed between Rome on the 
one hand, and the Siceliots and Magna Graecia on the other. 
The relations with Sicily have already been discussed, at least 
partly, in the preceding essay. The following pages will attempt 
to trace the connection between Magna Graecia and Latium. 
The difficulties which beset this task have already been set forth, 
and forbid its being treated as befits its importance. I shall con- 
sider the present paper merely as a formulative attempt, which 
will, I hope, have its greatest value in inciting others to a better 
transplant into Latium the cult of philosophy also: ‘ut huius generis laudem, iam 
languenti Graeciae eripiant.”” It is difficult to understand the attitude of such a 
writer as Horace, who recognizes without reserve that the Latins had been civilized 
by the Greeks (it is hardly necessary to recall the passage Ep. ii. 1. 185 f., “‘Graecia 
capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio.”’), unless we remember that 


Horace, although of Roman origin, was born in a country thoroughly under the 
influence of Greek civilization. Cf. my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 591. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 307 


definition of the elements which are here merely outlined, or which 
have escaped me altogether. 

In order to better understand our subject, it will be of aid to dis- 
cover what commercial impulses spread themselves along the 
shores of Latium, and to what degree these crossed one another. 
A full comprehension of the history of this commerce helps us 
greatly in explaining the political relations of the various states, 
and in determining what forms of speech, and even what literary 
forms, have passed from one people to the other. It would cer- 
tainly have been of the greatest value for our subject to have 
had a text anterior to the Punic wars, or, better yet, before the 
fourth century, when Campania was conquered, analogous to the 
one in which Cato enumerates the places from which agricul- 
tural supplies were best secured. Cales, Minturnae, and Suessa, 
according to Cato,’ furnished farm implements; Pompeii, Nola, 
and Capua, objects used in the oil industry; from Venafrum came 
tiles; from Nola and Capua, vases of every description; from 
Capua alone hemp rope and twine. It is true that these various 
local industries were not all created at the time of Cato, but had 
their origin several centuries earlier. It is more than probable 
that even before the fourth century the kitchen utensils and bronze 
vases which Cato mentions found their way to the plains of Latium, 
a region which both agriculturally and commercially was always 
tributary to Campania. 

Of far more value than the data of Cato for explaining the 
more remote periods are numerous and eloquent documents 
which for the most part are still buried in the earth. There exist, 
it is true, scattered through the museums of central Italy, vases 
which have been attributed to various regions of southern Italy 


t Cat. De agric. 135: “Calibus et Minturnis cuculliones, ferramenta, falces, 
palas, ligones, secures, ornamenta, murices, catellas: Venafro palas. Suessae et 
in Lucanis plostra, treblae Albae: Romae dolia, labra: tegulae ex Venafro. aratra 
in terram validam Romanica bona erunt, in terram pullam Campanica, iuga 
Romanica optima erunt: vomeris indutilis optimum erit: trapeti Pompeis, Nolae 
ad Rufri maceriam: claves, clostra Romae: hamae urnae oleariae, urcei aquarii 
urnae vinariae, alia vasa ahena Capuae, Nolae: fiscinae Campanicaet eame utiles 
sunt, funes subductarios, spartum omne Capuae: fiscinas Romanicas Suessae, 
Casino, optimae erunt Romae.” Cf. 22, 107, 146, 153 et passim. 


308 ANCIENT ITALY 


as their place of origin. But, so far as I know, we still await a 
definitive work by means of which we may be able to establish 
which of the different cities of Magna Graecia sent their wares to 
the markets of Etruria and Latium, and, let us add, of Liguria also, 
and what mutual relations and interests existed between these 
various currents. Such a problem can be completely solved only 
when the Italian government shall explore the various regions of 
Latium by means of ample and rigorously scientific excavations. 
In this district there are a very large number of places which still 
await the spade of the archaeologist. Surely, the intact condition 
of certain portions of the great Latin plain gives reason to suppose 
that the vases still buried there are no less numerous than in 
Etruria. Let us note, in passing, that there is almost no literary 
tradition in this regard. ‘There is a possible allusion to a trade 
in vases in the legend of the Corinthian Demaratus who came to 
Tarquinii, but I have elsewhere had occasion to remark that such 
a myth is easily explained if we bring it into connection with the 
commerce of Corinth from the seventh and sixth centuries on, and 
with that of Corinthian Syracuse, especially after 480 B. c.? 
Roman tradition, on the other hand, alludes frequently to the 
dependence of Latium upon Etruria in agricultural matters, and 
above all upon Campania. In spite of serious chronological errors 
to which ancient writers also have alluded, the true state of affairs 
appears with remarkable clearness from the statement that dur- 
ing the famines which afflicted Rome during the fifth century, 
Cumae and Capua sent her the desired supplies. The Roman 
annalist also affirms that Rome demanded grain from the Samnites 
of Capua shortly after they had become masters of the Campanian 
plain, as also from the Etruscan Volturnum, and that her demands 
met a harsh and proud refusal. True or false, this statement 
mirrors admirably the general hostile relations which existed 
between Capua and Rome, especially after the time of Pyrrhus, at 
the period when the Latin annalists became active. It is equally 


1 With Demaratus of Corinth are said to have come the artisans Euchir, Diops, 
and Eugrammus (Plin. N. H. xxxv.152). Euchir is nothing but a localization of 
the mythical Euchir, brother-in-law of Daedalus (Plin. N. H. vii. 205), inventor 
of the art of painting. For the value of this myth see the preceding article, p. 241. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS — 309 


certain that the superiority of Campanian to Roman soi] obliged 
the inhabitants of Latium more than once to make purchases of 
grain in the same region which they eagerly seized after the fourth 
century. Thus in general the account in the Roman annals 
appears worthy of credence, although the critic must reduce to 
their true value the details which embellish such legends as those 
of Coriolanus and of Spurius Melius.* In this connection it is 
worth while to note that with these legends, and with the importa- 
tion of grain and other supplies into Rome, the introduction of the 
plebeian cults of Mercury and Ceres must be related. Elsewhere 
I have sought to show the value of such cults in explaining the 
legends of Menenius Agrippa, Coriolanus, Sp. Cassius, and Sp. 
Melius, and how they derived vigor from the commercial relations 
with Sicily and Magna Graecia. Here I may be permitted to 
recall merely that the Italic Ceres, owing to the relations with the 
cities of Sicily and Magna Graecia, became identified with Demeter, 
and was henceforth honored according to the Hellenic rites. But 
this plebeian divinity, only at a late period recognized officially 
by the patricio-plebeian state, was never granted Roman priestesses, 
and much less those of patrician origin.? From an inscription 
we learn of one of the priestesses who was a Sicilian by birth. 
Cicero states that still in his time Velia and Naples were the cities 
whence those who were to attend to the-cult of the Greek Ceres 
came to Rome, and that these priestesses were rewarded with the 
citizenship in their new home. The importance of the cult of 
Demeter at Naples is well known and hardly requires mention.‘ 

The observations in regard to grain hold, though to a less 


t Liv. ii. 41; iv. 25, 52. I also refer to the previous essay, and to my Storia 
di Roma, I, 1, pp. 510 ff.; 2, p. 238. 

2 Cf. the preceding article, and my Storia di Roma, I, 1, chap. iv. 

3Cic. Pro Balbo 55; cf. CIL, VI, 2181. The Greek origin of the cult of 
Ceres, notwithstanding the Italic name of the goddess, is attested throughout 
antiquity; e. g., Fest. 237 M., s. v. Peregrina sacra. The granting of citizenship 
to a foreign priestess is a juridical consequence of the citizenship granted to the 
goddess herself. 

4 Stat. Silv. iv. 8. 50. For the Neapolitan inscriptions relating to the cult of 
this goddess, see Beloch, Campanien, p. 50. It is possible that one of the three 
decumani of the city was named from Demeter (via Nilo ?); see Beloch, op. cit., p. 70. 


310 ANCIENT ITALY 


degree, for olives and grapes. According to the historian Fene- 
stella, at the time of Tarquinius Priscus the olive did not exist in 
Italy, Spain, or Africa. But it is a question whether Pliny, when 
he quoted this author, reproduced his text accurately, or whether 
Fenestella, if he really expressed himself thus, followed his own 
sources exactly. It is hardly credible, even if the olive were totally 
unknown on the Italian peninsula, that it did not exist among the 
Achaean and Dorian colonies, brought with them from the Pelopon- 
nese when in the eighth century they civilized a great portion of 
the coast of the Ionian Gulf. The statement of Fenestella prob- 
ably must be accepted with some reserve, and stress be laid merely 
on the rarity of the olive in Italy about the year 581 B. c.' 

It is true that on the most ancient coins of the Italiot cities 
the olive is represented much less frequently than the sheaf of 
wheat and the bunch of grapes. It is, however, indubitably 
present on the coins of the second period of Velia,? which go back 
to the beginning of the fifth century, and it is hardly possible that 
it could have been lacking in the cult of Apollo, the special divinity 


« Plin. N. H. xv. 1: “Fenestella vero omnino non fuisse in Italia Hispani- 
aque aut Africa Tarquinio Prisco regnante ab annis populi Romani CLXXIII” 
(=581 B.c.). We are ignorant of Fenestella’s sources, but his statement has been 
properly brought into connection with that of Herodotus (v. 82), who says that 
Athens alone possessed olive trees. But that the olive existed in Elis at a very 
remote period, and was not imported from Athens, is shown by the fact that, while 
in Athens the victors in the games were crowned with olive branches, at Olympia 
they used for this purpose the wild olive (cf. Plin. N. H. xv. 19). For the original 
provenience of the olive see Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere, VI, pp. tot ff. 
Among other things, Hehn points out that the Latin words relating to the oil 
industry, such as amurca, orchis, trapetum, are derived from the Greek (cf. Weise, 
Die griech. Wérter im Latein, Leipzig, 1882). The supposition that the myth of 
Aristaeus alludes to the influence of the Phoenicians in introducing the olive (see 
Hehn, op. cit., p. 111) has, I think, no foundation. The myth of Aristaeus is 
manifestly of Greek origin, and its localization in Sardinia (see my Intorno alla 
Storia di Olbia, Sassari, 1895) falls in with the relations which existed between that - 
island and Sicily (whither Aristaeus is said to have returned) during the sixth, 
fifth, and fourth centuries B. c. 

2 Cf. the coin shown by Garrucci, Le monete d’Italia antica, Plate 118, Fig. 38, 
the style of which would date it about 500-450 B. c. (cf. Head, Hist. num., p. 74). 
So far as I know, the olive branch does not appear on vases of Magna Graecia 
before the fifth century. It must also be remembered that on vases, as on coins, it 
is not always easy to determine whether olive or laurel leaves are intended. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 311 


of all the Italiots, and indeed protector of Greek colonization 
itself, to whom it was customary to offer the sacred branch, the 
etpeotovn, on the occasion of the Pyanepsia and the Thargelia.* 
Surely there could have been no lack of oil in rich Croton, in 
Metapontum, and in Sybaris, whose athletic contests became so 
popular as to rival those of Olympia.?_ To be sure, some impor- 
tance must be attributed to the tradition which declares the olive 
to be sacred to Athens, and to the laws by means of which that 
city tried to monopolize the trade in oil. Nor were the pretensions 
of Athens to the ownership of any land capable of producing the 
olive a mere matter of words. It cannot be denied that the 
numismatical evidence attesting the abundance of the olive in 
Italy does not reach back of the fifth century. The time when 
Attic Thurii was founded represents one of the periods in which 
the olive was especially spread along the shores of Calabria, 
Campania, and Apulia. The coins of Apulia bear witness to such 
a culture, and also to the commercial relations which existed 
between that region and Athens in the fourth century, at which 
period it received an Attic colony. 


1 Cf. the passages collected by Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen, pp. 57, 144, 
279. 

2 That the ancient Sybarites (before 510 B. cc.) held games similar to those of 
Olympia is expressly asserted (see Pseud.-Scymn. 349 ff.; Heracl. Plat. apud 
Athen. xii. p. 521e). The same thing was also said of the people of Croton (see 
Tim. apud Athen. xii, p. 5226 [=fr. 82 M.]). We learn of games at Metapontum 
from a rare didrachm dating from the first half of the fifth century. (For its correct 
interpretation see Kinch, Rev. num., II [1898], pp. 71 ff.) On it, however, is not 
represented the olive, but a marsh plant, on which leans the god of the river Ache- 
lous. 

3 Cf. Herodot. v. 82; and Cic. D. R. P. iii. 9. 15: “Athenienses iurare etiam 
publice solebant omnem suam esse terram, quae oleam frugesve ferret.” 


4 The presence of the owl and the olive in connection with various cities of 
Apulia such as Teanum, Apulum, and Butuntum (see Garrucci, op. cit., Plates 
112, Figs. 5-8; 117, Fig. 7; coins in general of about 300 B.C.), would seem to 
allude to the influence of Athens in these regions; and, in fact, we know of an 
Attic rolony planted on the Italian side of the Adriatic about 324 B.c. (cf. CJA, 
II, 2; and my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 589). ‘Thus may also be explained the 
cult of Athena which existed at Rubi (Garrucci, op. cit., Plate 114, Fig. 32). On 
the other hand, it must not be forgotten that by means of the Tarentines the olive 
became widely spread on the Messapian peninsula, where it was known by the 


312 ANCIENT ITALY 


Be that as it may, the statement of Pliny that in 249 B. c.— 
that is to say, eight years before the end of the First Punic War— 
two pounds of olive oil cost ten asses, while in 74 B. c. one could 
purchase ten pounds, for one as,‘ proves how little, if any, oil 
was produced in Latium. Indeed, toward the end of the fourth 
century, when Rome began to coin money and make definite the 
valuation of fines, ten asses represented the value of a sheep and a 
tenth part of the price of an ox. The ox represented the highest 
unit of value, and from it, just as from the sheep, came the word 
pequnia, ‘““money.”? Remembering that the ratio of value between 
the as of 249 B. c., spoken of by Pliny, and the most ancient as 
was about as 1 to 24, it follows that the sum necessary to purchase 
an ox in the fourth century would not buy fifty pounds of oil. 
At Athens, on the other hand, for one obolus one could buy three 
cotulae of oil; that is to say, a kilogram for a little over an obolus. 
Thus at about the same period oil cost about fifteen times as much 
at Rome as at Athens.3 | 

Moreover, the price of ten asses for two pounds represents an 
under- rather than an over-valuation. From another passage in 
Pliny, which the texts hitherto have given incorrectly, but which 
seems to me to be easily emended from what has just been said, 
it results that this price held in 249 B.c., the year after that in 
which, thanks to the conquest of Palermo and the triumph of the 
proconsul L. Caecilius Metellus, all of the principal food supplies— 
grain, wine, dried figs, meat, and oil—were brought in abundance 
to the markets of Rome, and at a fairly low price. The conquest 


name of oliva sallentina or oleastellus (Cat. De agricult. 6; Colum. xii. 49). As 
to the oil of Thurii, suffice it to note that it was alluded to by Amphis apud Athen. 
i. 306; ii. 676; that is to say, by an Athenian comic poet of the middle of the 
fourth century. 

tPlin. IN. i .:xv., 1. 

2 Varr. D. L. L. v. 95; Fest., p. 144 M., s. v. maximam multam; p. 202 M., 
s. v. ovibus; p. 237 M., s. v. peculatus; cf. Paul. Ep. Fest., p. 24 M., s. v. aesti- 
mata poena; Dionys. x. 50; Gell. N. A. xi. 1. 

3 CIA, II, 1, nos. 631, 695; cf. the discussion from these data by Mommsen, 
Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 77. 

4Plin. N. H. xviii. 17: “M. Varro auctor est cum L. Metellus in triumpho 
plurimos duxit elephantos, assibus singulis farris modios fuisse, item vini congios 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 313 


of Sicily was therefore of great importance for Rome, both for her 
grain and for her oil supply. It is obvious, however, that before 
the time of Cato, who makes explicit mention of the fact, the oil of 
Pompeii, Nola, and other regions of Campania was in demand in 
Rome. Moreover, the pan-Athenaic amphorae, which after the 
sixth or fifth century were eagerly sought for in the markets of 
Etruria and Latium, came filled with the precious oil, which to 
such an extent nourished the commerce both of wealthy Athens 
and of the Italiot Thurii, and which became as famous as that of 
the Sallentine peninsula. We have every reason to believe that 
the olive was introduced into Latium from Campania, where it 
was cultivated as far as Venafrum. At any rate, that oil was 
brought to Rome at an early period from the regions of southern 
Italy is shown by the fact that the image of Saturn, to whom there 
was erected a temple in the Roman Forum in 348 B. c., was filled 
with oil. Let it here be observed that ancient writers expressly 
attest the fact that the cult rites of this divinity were of distinctly 
Greek, and not of Latin, character, although the god himself was 
indigenous. 

Much older than the cultivation of the olive is certainly that 


fici siccae pondo XXX, olei pondo X, carnis pondo XII.” This, however, contra- 
dicts another passage of Pliny N. H. xv. 2: “urbis quidem anno DV Appio 
Claudio Caeci nepote L. Iunio cos. olei librae duae denis assibus veniere, et mox 
anno DCLXXX, M. Seius L. f. aedilis currulis olei denas libras singulis assibus 
praestitit populo Romano per totum annum.” According to these two different 
passages, in 250 B. Cc. the year of the triumph of Metellus, one pound of oil cost 
ten asses; in 249 B.C. two pounds could be had for the same price. But since 
Pliny (xviii. 17), in speaking of the price in 250, cites it among the cases of great 
reduction, it seems more than probable that the price in 249 was the same as that 
in 250. And since the agreement between denis assibus and denas libras makes it 
probable that the passage xv. 2 is correct, it follows that the other passage should be 
corrected. 

t Plin. N. H. xv. 32: “veteri quoque usus est ad quaedam genera morborum 
existimatur et ebori vindicando a carie utile esse. certe simulacrum Saturni 
Romae intus oleo repletum est.”” That the temple of Saturn was erected toward 
the middle of the fourth century, at the time of L Furius Camillus, and not at a 
much earlier period, as affirmed by dubious tradition, we learn from the annalist 
Gell. apud Macrob. i. 8. 2, where the different traditions are mentioned, and 
where it is stated that the rites of Saturn were Greek. This is confirmed by Dionys. 
i. 34; Fest., p. 322 (Saturnia); Plut. Q. Rom. 11. 


314 ANCIENT ITALY 


of the vine. This is shown by the coins of Magna Graecia and 
Sicily, and also by the Roman cults. The legend concerning the 
Etruscan Mezentius, who wished to make the Romans give him 
the produce of all the vineyards which were cultivated on Latin 
soil, has no value in proving that the vine was cultivated before 
the eighth century B.c. and before the arrival of the Greek 
colonists. The legend proves, however, that the grape industry 
was associated with the two indigenous and patrician deities, 
Jupiter and Venus, and that the tradition which mentioned the 
recent introduction of the olive referred the cultivation of the vine 
to the very beginning of the Latin race. An examination of the 
legend shows that it arose as a consequence of the ceremonies per- 
taining to the cult of Jupiter Latiaris, and that it stood in intimate 
relation with the prosperous and well-known vineyards of the 
Alban Hills. It also shows that vines were planted at Rome still 
earlier than the introduction of the cult of Bacchus or Diony- 
sus." ; 

That the introduction of this last-mentioned divinity of Magna 
Graecia and Sicily had a certain effect even upon the plebeian 
cults is shown clearly by the triad Ceres, Libera, and Liber, who 
correspond exactly to the Demeter, Persephone, and Dionysus 
worshiped in Sicily, and probably in several regions in Magna 
Graecia.?_ Wine was not produced abundantly in Latium before the 
fourth century. This is shown by the fact that it was considered 
more as a medicine than as an ordinary drink. Suit could even 
be brought against those who used it immoderately, and a woman 
who drank of it without the knowledge of her parents could be 
condemned to death. According to ancient writers, the parents 
by kissing the woman could discover whether or not she had tasted 

t The myth of Mezentius and his pretensions to the wine of the Rutili and 
Latins is spoken of by Cato apud Macrob. iii. 5. 10; cf. Varr. apud Plin. N. H. 
xiv. 88; Dionys. i. 65; Fast. Praen. ad d. 23 Apr. (=Veinalia); Fest., p. 226: 
Rustica Veinalia; Ovid Fast. 879; Plut, Q. Rom. 45; cf. also the material collected 
by Mommsen, C/L, I’, pp. 316, 325. As to the cult of Venus, which, I believe, 


was at first joined with that of Jupiter, and was ancient, I do not follow the views 
of this great critic. I shall give the reasons for this in their proper place. 


2 See above, p. 250. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS — 315 


of the forbidden liquor.’ Finally, the same legend according 
to which Mezentius laid claim to the yield of all the vineyards of 
Latium, shows the precious character of this produce, and proves 
that the Latins, even earlier than the neighboring Etruscans, had 
taken to cultivating a plant which throve better in their southern 
soil than in the colder or more marshy regions north of the Tiber.? 
It would be useless to insist on the circumstance that the Romans 
commenced to cultivate the vine only at a rather late period, since 
ancient writers expressly attest this fact,3 and note that this is 
the reason why in the earliest sacrifices, which are attributed to 
the regal epoch, no use was made of wine, but only of milk.4 

The extensive cultivation of the vine which the Romans carried 
on in western and southern Europe was not commenced till after 
the conquest of Campania. It was then that they came into 
possession of the vineyards of Mount Massicus and of Caecubus, 
and of the Aminaean vines from Falernum and Salernum, which, 
according to a statement which takes its origin from Aristotle,’ 
were imported by the Thessalians. 

1 For these well-known facts it will suffice to refer to Polyb. vi. 2. 3; and 
Plin. N. H. xiv. 89 ff. The ban upon wine-drinking figures also in the laws of 
Locri, Ael. V. H. ii. 37. From Alcimus Siculus apud Athen. x, p. 441 4, we 
learn that such laws were in force both at Croton and in other Greek cities of Italy. 

2In regard to the early use of the vine and of wine among the Etruscans 
and Latins, it is characteristic that the templum is connected with the word 
vinea, as may be derived from the legend of Attus Navius (see my Storia di 
Roma, I, pp. 315 ff.). For those who believe that such a division of the vineyards 
by the cardes and decumanus represents a practice unique among the Etruscans, 
as even the legend of Attus Navius might lead one to think, it is not out of place 
to recall that even today in the countries whence the vine originally came, such as 
Colchis and Armenia, the vineyards are still cultivated and arranged in this manner 
(see the authorities cited by Hehn, op. cit., p. 64). 

It is also a noteworthy fact that the vitis was the symbol of the authority with 
which the centurion was invested. It would be interesting to determine whether 
the curved pedum of the archaic statue found at Isola di Fano symbolizes the vitis. 
The statue is illustrated by Milani (NV. S., 1884, p. 270; Museo topogr. d. Etruria), 
who sees in it a representation of the god Vertumnus—but without reason, as it 
seems to me. 

3 Plin. N. H. xviii..24: “apud Romanos multo serior vitium cultura esse coepit.”’ 

4Plin. N. H. xiv. 88; cf. Hehn, op. cit., p. 65. 

s Aristot. apud Philarg. ad Verg. Georg. ii. 97. The Aminaean vines were in 
the course of time planted in various parts of southern Italy, as at Naples (Galen, 


316 ANCIENT ITALY 


I do not propose to treat of the vicissitude of the wine industry 
in Campania and the other regions of the peninsula after the fourth 
century. In regard to this part of the material civilization of the 
ancients let us merely note that the antiquity and importance of 
the commercial relations between Campania and Rome are shown 
by the fact that the same unit of linear measure was used in the 
two regions. The metrological studies of Nissen, confirmed by 
those of Mau, Dérpfeld, and Richter, show that up to the time of 
Sulla the foot of o.278 m. was in use at Pompeii, and also in Latium 
at Ardea, Lanuvium, Ferentinum, Anagnia, and possibly even 
at Rome, preceding the introduction of the Attic-Roman foot of 
o.296m. In Rome itself this latter foot seems to have been intro- 
duced not earlier than the fifth or the beginning of the fourth cen- 
tury. According to national tradition, it was introduced not earlier 
than 451 B.C., the time of the decemvirate, when the Romans 
first came into direct contact with Attica. For my own part, I 
am disposed to believe that the Attic-Roman foot, which seems not 
to have been accepted at Tarentum before the fourth century, was 
received in Rome not earlier than the founding of Attic Thurii 
(466 B. c.), and possibly much later. We shall be better informed 


Meth. Med., XII, 4), in Peucetia (Hesch., s. v. ’Amevator), near Sorrento and 
Vesuvius (Plin. N. H. xiv. 21 ff.), and in Calabria (e. g., CIL, X, 114). It is not 
easy to establish where these Thessalian Aminaeans originally located, for in the 
passage of Macrobius (iii. 20. 6: ‘‘nam Aminaei fuerunt ubi nunc Salernum est’’) 
the codex Salisburgensis has Falernum instead of Salernum. ‘The reading Faler- 
num is accepted by Eyssenhart, the most recent editor of Macrobius, while Rose 
(Arist. q. fereb. libr. fragment., n. 495, Pp. 313) prefers the other. In favor of this 
hypothesis Rose quotes the passage in Pliny (N. H. iii. 70) from which we learn 
that in the territory of the Picentini, near the Silarus, there was a temple of the 
Argive Juno, founded by Jason himself. On the strength of this passage I have 
surmised that at Vietri near Salerno (where, according to Strabo, the ancient 
Etruscan city of Marcina was located) should be placed the seat of the Aminaeans, 
to whom Garrucci attirbutes the coin with the inscription ’Aw, which De Petra 
(Arch. stor. p. l. prov. Nap., IV, p. 179) erroneously interpreted as As(ia) (cf. my 
Storia della M. Grecia, I, pp. 246, 528 ff.), although there is no literary evidence 
for a town of that name. The passage in Steph. Byz., s. v. Tila ws Acta words 
"Iradlas, does not mean, as generally interpreted, that there was one city in Italy 
named Tisia, and another in Asia. The author, following his well-known custom, 
merely observes that Tisia has the same ending as Asia. In Diod. xxxvii. 2. 13, 
and Appian, B. Hann. 44, we read "Iota or Tita in place of Acta. 

t See the excellent article of Richter, Hermes, XXII (1887), pp. 17 ff.; also 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 317 


as to this when exact metrological observations have been made 
on the monuments of Sicily, Magna Graecia, and Latium, which 
are still for the most part unexplored, and of which the few that 
have been studied have never been measured with this point in 
view. In the case of the measure of capacity, there certainly came 
a time when the Sicilian supplanted that of Magna Graecia. This 
is shown by such expressions as medimno siciliano and sicilicus.' 

The influence of Magna Graecia and Sicily on the coinage of 
Rome has often been observed. A discussion of the origin of the 
Roman monetary system, and its connection with those of Sicily and 
Carthage, would be foreign to my subject. But although Rome, 
after a period slightly anterior to the First Punic War, felt the neces- 
sity of following the system of weights which the commercial power 
of Athens caused to be generally accepted, it is nevertheless clear 
that in the types and art of her coinage she continued to feel the 
direct influence of Campania. Not only during the fourth century, 
but even to the time of Cato or later, the types of the Italiot cities 
offered subjects for imitation to the Roman mints. The connection 
between certain series of Roman and Campanian coins is well 
known, and I shall limit myself to recalling the types of the 
earliest Roman quadrilaterals (although some of them date from 
the beginning of the third rather than from the fourth century), and 
those of the aes grave, which show points of contact with Sicily, 
and with such cities as Thurii, Croton, and Regium.? Finally, 
the theories of Dérpfeld, Ath. Mitth., IX (1884), pp. 198 ff.; and cf. Hermes 
XXII, pp. 79-85. 

1 It is to be hoped that results of observations along this line will some time be 
published by Koldewey and Puchstein, authors of the work Die griech. Tempel in 
Unteritalien u. Sicilien (Berlin, 1895). As yet they have not been able, or have 
not desired, to discuss the matter. 

2 That Roman coins, even of a rather late period, sometimes imitate much 
earlier ones of Italiot cities is shown, for example, by the coins of M. Porcius Cato, 
nephew of Cato the Elder, struck about ror B. c., which, as has been noted, recall 
the types of Terina (see Babelon, op. cit., II, p. 371). Thus the coins of Valerius 
Acisculus showing Europa and the bull (see Babelon II, p. 519) are explained only 
when we think of the part taken by the Valerii in the cults of the secular games, 
and of the fact that these games were introduced from Tarentum. 


In regard to the dependence of the earliest Roman coins on the types of the 
cities of Magna Graecia, suffice it to recall such examples of the aes grave as that 


318 ANCIENT ITALY 


special attention should be called to the Roman silver coin with 
the word “Popaiwv, which if not struck shortly after 326 B. c., as 
some scholars maintain, at least clearly shows the relations with 
Naples, and was possibly made either in that city or by Neapolitan 
artists... This coin demonstrates that Rome began to present 
herself in the Greek world as a Hellenic city, and justifies the 
epithet wédus “EAAnvis which was given her by Greek writers 
about the middle of the fourth century. Together with other 
Roman examples, it shows that Greek cities such as Naples and 
Velia furnished the types and the workmen for the earliest Roman 
coins, which in some cases are of such beauty as to seem of Italiot 
provenience. With this fact is to be connected the circumstance 
that the local mint of Naples, and especially that of Paestum, existed 
for so long a time. That of Paestum even survived for a short 
period the extinction of the remaining municipal mints of Italy.? 

Conforming with these data are the statements regarding the 
introduction of the precious metals at Rome. It is quite probable 
that gold was found in certain regions of Italy in very ancient times. 
Certainly the aurijodinae of the valley of Aosta and that of Sesia 
were worked by the Gauls, and later by the Romans; but there 
was never a great abundance of gold and silver found in the 
peninsula. This explains the fact that copper was the metal which 
published by Garrucci (of. cit., p. 39, Plate 70, Fig. 2), found in Calabria near 
Nicotera, and which appears to imitate the types of Regium. For other points of 
contact between the Roman and Italiot coinage see the excellent work of Milani, 
Aes rude, signatum e grave (Milan, 1891). I have already cited other examples 
pertaining to relations between the coinage of Greek Sicily and that of central 
Italy (see above, pp. 293 f.). It would be of advantage to discover the origin of the 
quadrans attributed to Tibur (Garrucci, op. cit., Plate 45, Fig. 4). Such subjects 
deserve special treatment from the hands of future writers on the coins of ancient 
Italy. Notwithstanding the excellent researches of Cavedoni, Borghesi, Avellino, 


Garrucci, De Petra, Milani, and Mommsen, there remains much to be accom- 
plished. 

t See Babelon, I, p. 15. 2 See Mommsen in CIL, X, p. 53. 

3 For the gold mines of the Ictimuli, see the material collected by Mommsen, 
CIL, V, p. 715, to which should be added Plin. N. H. iii. 138. (For the topog- 
raphy see Giambelli, Atti dei Lincei, 1899, pp. 252 ff.) Cf. pp. 183 f. for the ancient 
gold mines of Ischia, said to have been worked by the Chalcidaeans (Strab. v, 
p 247'C.). 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS — 319 


among the peoples of Italy and Sicily was used almost exclusively 
to represent commercial transactions. Of this metal an abun- 
dant quantity was found in the mines of Etruria, and from it 
the Italiots derived much benefit in their commercial relations with 
the Etruscans on the one hand, and with the Milesians and Attica 
on the other. We may therefore disregard the statement of 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus,’ according to whom the Siculi, when 
they left Latium, betook themselves to Sicily, carrying treasures 
of gold and silver. We gladly leave this and other extraneous 
information to the untrained Italian scientists who have recently 
laid undue emphasis on the myths of the Siculi and Pelasgians, 
whom tradition presents as the earliest inhabitants of the penin- 
sula. Take, for example, the reference to the gold which about 
389 B. C. the women are supposed to have given their fathers and 
husbands to redeem themselves from the Gauls. Other ancient 
writers inform us that the thousand pounds of gold, if that amount 
was really given the Gauls, either had nothing to do with Rome 
and is to be referred to some Greek city, or else it was loaned to 
the Romans by the Greek states.? 

For our purpose it is enough to observe that at the time of the 
Samnite wars and the alliance with rich Capua, abundant riches 
began to flow toward Rome. The Romans themselves declared 
that they did not commence to become rich till the last Samnite 
and Sabine wars of Curius Dentatus. This is easily understood, 
and harmonizes with the account of the rich armor of the Sabine 
legions, which suggests the relations between these peoples and 
the Greek cities of Campania and the Tarentine Gulf. Only 


1 Dion. Hal. i. 22. The passage is, of course, accepted by those Italian writers 
who at the present time, on the base of Dionysius and similar authority, give cre- 
dence to the ancient fables concerning Siculian or Pelasgic origin, and show a lack 
of knowledge—or, what is worse, a lack of understanding—of the more certain 
and accurate results of both Italian and foreign criticism. 

2 See the detailed account of this in my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 28 ff., 57, 80 ff. 

3Fab. Pict. apud Strab. v, p. 228C.=fr. 20 P.: ‘Pwualovs alcbécbar roi 
mwrovrou Tore mpQrov bre Tov eAvovs Tov’Tov Karéotnoay Kip; cf. Plut. Cat. 
Maior 2. Concerning the Samnite legions see Liv. ix. 40; x. 38ff.; and the 
passages cited in my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 465, n. 1. For the victories of Mn. 
Curius, see ibid., in the index where the question of identity between the expres- 


320 ANCIENT ITALY 


after the deliverance of Thurii, which took place about 286 B. C., is 
there mention of a gold chaplet which was given by the Greeks 
of that city to a certain Aelius, tribune of the Roman plebs. If an 
analogous case did happen before this, it could not be referred to a 
much earlier period. About the time of Pyrrhus and the conquest 
of Thurii and Croton, the Romans commenced to evade the rigid 
sumptuary laws which imposed a limited use of silver utensils, 
and as a result Cornelius Rufinus was expelled from the Senate.? 
Finally, it should be remembered that in this period—that is to 
say, at a time when the resistance of the Samnites against the 
Romans commenced to be less vigorous, and just before the arrival 
of Pyrrhus—there came to Rome several customs from the Italiot 
cities, such as the refinement of silken garments, and the practice 
of giving the palm branch to the victors in the games. To this 


sions Sabini and Samnites is discussed. ‘The great difference between the slight 
use of utensils and arms of precious materials among the Romans, and the luxury 
of the Campanians, is clearly shown in the account of Livy (ix. 40; 310 B.C.) 
regarding the different uses to which the two peoples put the Samnite booty. 


1 Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 32. Another case is mentioned by Pliny (N. H. xxxiii. 
38) in speaking of the consul L. Cornelius Lentulus, who rewarded Servius Cor- 
nelius Merenda, Samnitium oppido capto, with two gold chaplets weighing five 
pounds. Instead of the consul L. Cornelius Lentulus of 327, who is spoken of as 
inactive (Liv. vii. 22), this seems to refer to the consul of the same name of 275, . 
who, according to the Capitoline fasti, triumphed over the Samnites and the Luca- 
nians. The annalist Cornelius Piso (apud Plin., Joc. cit.) mentions, it is true, a 
wreath of gold given by the dictator Postumius Albinus after the battle of Lake 
Regillus, but this is part of the legend. On the other hand, we may fully accept 
what Pliny (NV. H. xxxiii. 11) has to say of the Etruscan gold chaplet which was 
held suspended above the head of the triumphing Romans at a time when only 
iron rings were worn at Rome, and those of gold were granted temporarily to 
ambassadors. And since from Pliny (zbid. and ff.) we learn that magistrates did 
not commence to wear gold rings till the time of Marius, it is clear that we must 
consider a rhetorical embellishment what is said concerning the gold rings depos- 
ited at Rome after the disaster at the Caudine Forks. See Liv. ix. 7. 9: “‘anuli 
aurei positi;”’ cf. my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 511 n., 565 n. 

2 Dionys. xx. 13; Val. Max. ii. 9. 4; Plut. Syll. 1; cf. Cic. De orat. ii. 268. 

3 Liv. x. 47: “eodem anno [i. e., 293 B. C.] coronati primum ab res bello bene 
gestas ludos Romanos spectarunt, palmaeque tum primum translato e Graecia 
more victoribus datae.”” See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 596, n. 2, for a discussion 
of the value of this passage. I recall here that at about this period, according to 
the sources of Lydus (De mens. i. 19; De mag. i. 7), the Romans, in introducing 
the robes peculiar to magistrates (i. e., ornamented with purple), are said to have 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 321 


time also doubtless refers the passage in Tacitus to the effect that 
the Romans brought from Thurii the custom of racing horses in 
the circus." : 

I am far from thinking that I have exhausted the list of relations 
which existed between Latium and Magna Graecia and Cam- 
pania. It is certain that an examination of the ancient writers 
would disclose many elements which have escaped me. I merely 
note, in conclusion, how humble were the dwellings, or rather 
huts, of the Romans before the age of Pyrrhus. Up to that time, 
according to Cornelius Nepos, they were covered with scandula, 
or shingles.? Nor is it without reason that the three styles of 
building most used in Rome are called graeca, sicula, and cam pana.3 
Rather than dwell longer on the relations of a commercial nature 
and those pertaining to material civilization, I prefer in the follow- 
ing pages to treat of those connected with politics and religion.¢ 


imitated Agathocles of Syracuse. For the garments which were later introduced 
from Campania, see Val. Max. ii. 4. 6. 


t Tac. Ann. xiv. 21: “a Tuscis accitos histriones, a Thuriis equorum certa- 
mina.” Although tradition either is silent in this regard, or does not offer a defi- 
nite statement, Naples also must have exercised a certain influence, together with 
Thurii and Tarentum. For the imperial epoch this has often been surmised; 
see Civitelli, “I nuovi frammenti di epigrafi greche relative ai ludi augustali di 
Napoli,” Atti del? Accad di Archeologia (Naples, 1894), pp. 53 f. But the influence 
of Naples, if it existed, must date from the end of the fourth, or at least the begin- 
ning of the third, century B. Cc. 

2 Corn. Nep. apud Plin. N. H. xvi. 36: “scandula contectam fuisse Romam 
ad Pyrrhi usque bellum annis CCCCLXX Cornelius Nepos auctor est.” The 
year 470 of Rome, according to Cornelius Nepos, corresponds to 282 B. C., because 
he places the founding of Rome in the second year of the seventh Olympiad (cf. 
Sol. i. 27). This, as I have brought out elsewhere, shows the falsity of the passage 
in Diodorus concerning the tiles distributed by the state after the departure of the 
Gauls, and is eminently suited to a city which had many groves within and near 
its boundaries, as is clearly shown by history. 

3 Plin. N. H. xvi. 225: “firmissima in rectum abies, eadem valvarum paginis 
et ad quaecumque libeat intestina opera aptissima sive Graeco, sive Campano, 
sive Siculo fabricae artis genere spectabilis.” 

4 Whoever wishes to continue with similar research should notice, above all, 
the derivations of Latin words from the Greek; as, for example, in the article of 
Weise (Rhein. Mus., XX XVIII [1883], pp. 540 ff.), and more fully in his excellent 
work, already quoted, Die griech. Worter im Latein. Thus one might inquire into 
the customs regarding food, dress, etc., which came from Sicily and Magna Graecia; 


322 ANCIENT ITALY 


II 


The Romans were justly proud of their military system, the 
excellence of which is said to have aroused the admiration of the 
Epirote Pyrrhus;? but they themselves recognized that the oldest 
features of this system were patterned after the Greek phalanx.’ 
It is certain, as tradition itself admits, that Rome borrowed both 
arms and institutions from the various peoples of the peninsula. 
The Tyrrhenians, inventors of the war trumpet, taught them to use 
round shields covered with copper. From the Samnites the 
Romans learned the use of various weapons of offense, and during 
the wars against this nation, as we learn from a Greek text recently 
discovered by Arnim, they felt the need of organizing their cavalry. 
Tradition shows that the earliest Roman armies made use of war 
chariots similar to those which elsewhere—as, for example, in 
Boeotia—we find in use as late as 506 B.c., or even down to the 
battle of Delium (424 B.c.). By tradition we are also informed 
that the Roman cavalry was modeled after that of the Tarentines.3 


for example, the custom of shaving (see Varro D. R. R. ii. 11. 10); that of dining 
in Greek style; and, especially, the use of Sicilian and Italiot dainties (e. g., for 
the dor Oovpravév, see Athen. vi, p. 274 d). 

t Plut. Pyrrh. 16. 6: rd&s wev elev, & Meydkdes, atrn Trav BapBdpwy ob Bdp- 
Bapos. 

2 Liv. viii. 8. 3: “‘clipeis antea Romani usi sunt; dein, postquam stipendarii 
facti sunt, scuta pro clipeis fecere; et quod antea phalanges similes Macedonicis, 
hoc postea manipulatim structa acies coepit esse.’ The error of Livy lies in 
speaking of Macedonian phalanxes, instead of the Greek system in general. It 
is hardly necessary to recall that before the fourth century the Romans could not 
have known of the Macedonian phalanx. 


3 That the Roman knights first fought in chariots appears clearly from the 
myth of Metius Fufetius, whose body was attached to chariots drawn by qua- 
drigae (Liv. i. 28. 10). Nor should we be surprised that this custom lasted so long 
in Rome, since we find it among the Thebans in 424 B. c. (Diod. xii. 70), and since 
we know that war chariots were used by the Persians up to the time of Alexander 
the Great, and even later. 

It is known that the cavalry system was borrowed from the Greeks, from the 
ceremony of the transvectio equitum connected with the cult of Castor and Pollux, 
which is said to have been instituted in 304 B.c. (Liv. ix. 46; cf. my Storia di 
Roma, I, 2, p. 607, n. 1). The incomplete text of Granius Licinianus (p. 5, ed. 
Bonn) speaks of Castor and Pollux, and of the cavalry imitating that of the Spar- 
tans at the time of Tarquinius Priscus, in the passage where he discusses the insti- 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 323 


This is more readily understood when we remember that the great 
wars generally known by the name of Samnite were more or less 
openly sustained by the money and counsel of the Tarentines, 
who were enabled to bring over to their side no small part of the 
Samnite tribes, and who openly summoned the aid of Pyrrhus 
when their Italian confederates thought it best to recognize the 
supremacy of Rome." 

The superiority of Tarentum in military matters did not influ- 
ence the peoples of Italy alone. After the time of Alexander 
we find the so-called Tarantina cavalry system in various Hellen- 


tutions of this king, and attributes to him the practice that each knight should 
receive two horses. With Castor and Pollux was connected the myth of the victory 
of Lake Regillus; see, e..g., Livy (ii. 20) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (vi. 13), 
who give the localization in Latium of the appearance of the Dioscuri near the 
Sagrum. In regard to the desultores, who also appear on the coins of Suessa 
Aurunca, and to the Tarentine cavalry, which was imitated, not only by the Romans, 
but also by Alexander the Great and his successors, see my Storia di Roma, I 
2, p; 607; mn: x ff. 

The creation of the Roman cavalry at the time of the Samnite wars is expli- 
citly attested by the Ineditum Vaticanum of Amim, in Hermes, XXVII, 1801, 
p. 121. This statement should be compared with that of Sall. Catil. 51. 38,“arma 
atque tela militaria ab Samnitibus . . . . sumpserunt,” and with the analogous 
passages in Diod. xxiii. 2, and in Athen. vi, pp. 274 f, which instead of coming 
directly from Posidonius (see Athen., Joc. cit.), seem to be derived from some such 
historian as Polybius (vi. 25), who repeats the same idea, and who very probably 
set it forth in greater detail in some other place in his writings. It is possible that 
Polybius depended upon Cato for his information. At any rate, the statement 
that in his time the armament of both the Roman infantry and the cavalry was 
similar to that of the Greeks (see Polyb. vi. 3. 7) should persuade even the most 
skeptical that the Roman military system was more dependent upon that of the 
Greeks than is generally admitted. For the Bruttianae parmae, see Paul, Ep. 
Fest., p. 31n.; cf. the coins of the Bruttians. 

Tradition speaks, it is true, of modifications in the arms of the Romans at 
the time of Camillus and the capture of Veii, and this has been made the basis for 
modern treatment of the subject; see Marquardt, Rém. Staatsverwaltung, II, 
pp. 330 ff. But sufficient attention has not been paid to the other elements already 
brought out, nor to the fact that one tradition refers to a certain Sulpicius and the 
year 358 a course of action which others attribute to Marcus Camillus (cf. App. 
B. G. 1). Possibly more truth is contained in the narration regarding the reor- 
ganization of the Latin army about 340 B.c. (Liv. viii. 8); that is to say, at the time 
of L. Furius Camillus, who was often confused with M. Camillus; unless, indeed, 
these reforms refer only to the infantry. 


? 


t Cf. Zonar. viii. 2. 


324 ANCIENT ITALY 


istic armies. And this superiority did not manifest itself merely 
in the equipment of the knights, since it was Tarentum who pro- 
duced Heraclides, inventor of certain engines of war which were 
used even by Philip V of Macedon.* 

Up to the time of the Samnite wars Rome was accustomed to 
rely chiefly upon the infantry for her strength, and even the supreme 
leader of the army fought on foot. In the military uprising of 
299 B. Cc. against the Roman general Pontius Telesinus, the aged 
Fabius Verrucosus is said to have been the first to sida on a 
field of battle seated upon a war-horse.? 

Rome in general remained faithful to this principle of tactics. 
Thus we know that one of the causes of the early and sudden 
victories of Hannibal was the superiority of the Punic cavalry. 
Even the Campanians were in this regard always superior to the 
Romans, and it was precisely the greater number of cavalry in 
the contingent of the Samnites from Capua which caused the 
Romans to place greater reliance on the strength of their allies 
than on their own. 

When at the time of Hannibal the Romans undertook the 
siege of Capua, they were not able to avail themselves of the 
Campanian equites who had remained faithful, since it had seemed 
best to have them fight elsewhere. They then clearly recognized 
the weakness of their system and introduced the velites—an expedi- 
ent which, according to a hypothesis which I have elsewhere set 
forth, served to embellish and augment the legend of the augur 
Attus Navius.4 

The military system of the peoples of southern Italy, whether 
Greek or native, and whether of Tarentum, Campania, or Samnium, 
was superior to that of the Romans. With this fact should possibly 
be more closely connected than is generally believed, the organiza- 
tion of the gladitorial games, which, according to an early tradi- 
tion, were introduced from Etruria. These games are mentioned 

t Athen. xiv, p. 634 0; cf. vi. 251, and Polyb. xiii. 4. 6. 

2 Oros. iii. 22. 8; cf., however, Plut. Fab. 4, and what I have said (Storia di 
Roma, I, 2, pp. 571, 607) concerning the duplications of the undertakings of Fabius 


Maximus with reference to Q. Fabius Rullianus and Q. Fabius Cunctator. 
3 Liv. xxiii. 31. 4 Liv. xxvi. 4; cf. my Storia di Roma, I, 1, pp. 315 ff. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 325 


at the time of the Samnite wars, and Capua always remained the 
most important center for this branch of athletic and warlike 
training. Moreover, the name of the Samnites served to indicate 
one faction in the Circus games of the Roman.' 

From a civil and political standpoint the relations between 
Rome and southern Italy are no less evident. It has already been 
noted that the word svyxAnTOos, to indicate the Senate, was received 
from some city of Magna Graecia or Sicily, such as Agrigentum 
or possibly Naples.? This latter city is more certainly suggested 
by the expression 8%apyos, which was constantly used in official 
Greek writings to indicate the tribune of the plebs. It is generally 
supposed that the demarch became the principal magistrate of 
Naples. This theory, even more than by the inscriptions referring 
to this office, seems to be supported by the fact that it was accepted 
by both Titus and Hadrian, although anywhere else they would 
taken that of duovir iure dicundo. Nevertheless, it must not be 
forgotten that among the Neapolitan inscriptions we find mention 
of the dpy@v and of the dpxovtes.s To explain the coexistence 

1 There is no reason for doubting the statement of Nicolaus Damascenus apud 
Athen. iv, p. 153 7, where he says that the use of gladiators came from Etruria to 
Rome (about 264 B.c.; see Liv. xvi; Val. Max. ii. 4. 7); cf. also C. O. Miiller, 
Die Etrusker, ed. Deecke, II, p. 223. But the fact that the Samnites had already 
appeared as gladiators at Capua (310 B.C.; Liv. ix. 40), the main center of gladi- 
atorial games (see the passages collected by Lafaye in Daremberg and Saglio, s. v., 
II, 2, p. 1578), and go back farther than the Galli and Thraeces, and also the fact 
that there is no special epithet, as there is for the histriones, to indicate Etruscan 
origin (there is, on the contrary, in Janista; see Isid. Orig. x, p. 247), both go to 
prove that the Campanians aided in introducing such games at Rome. Possibly 
such influence was exercised by both peoples, as was the case with the cults of 
Bacchus, which were introduced into Rome by both the Campanians and the 
Etruscans; see Liv. xxxix. 8, 13. 

2 Mommsen, Rém. Staatsrecht, III, p.145,n.2; p. 841, n. 2. Fora dedication 
to the goddess ZWyxAnros at Karabounar, north of the Meander, see Bull. d. cor. 
hellen., XVIII, 1894, p. 9; for the €oxAnros at Syracuse see Hesych., s. v. 

3 The material relating to the &pxovres and to the S4uapxo is discussed by 
Momnsen, CIL, X, p. 172; cf. N. S., 1896, p. 105. Sogliano (“L’ epigrafe di P. 
Plozio Faustino,” Mon. det Lincei, 1891, p. 565) justly alludes to the grave diffi- 
culties which beset this theme. An objection to my hypothesis would be offered 
by the passage in Spart. Vita Hadr. 19, where it is said that this emperor was 
“apud Neapolim demarchus,” and also by the Neapolitan inscription (Kaibel, 
I. G. S. I., 729) from which we learn the same fact for Titus. Here as at Athens 


326 ANCIENT ITALY 


and correlation of these two magistracies, various hypotheses have 
been evolved. My own explanation is that at Naples as well as 
Rome the struggle between the patrician and plebeian elements 
ended in the full triumph of the plebs. In other words, the same 
revolutionary movement—more or less embellished with fictitious 
elements by tradition—which occurred at Rome, and which, accord- 
ing to tradition, dates its origin from the beginning of the Repub- 
lic, or even from the reign of Servius Tullius, took place in the 
various cities of Magna Graecia, and in the other cities of Greece 
and Italy as well. Thus I am led to believe that the development 
of the power of the tribune of the plebs was the same at Naples 
as at Rome. 

At Rome not only did the rex sacrorum recognize the authority 
of the pontifex, but (which is more important for our purpose) 
it also happened in the course of time that the cousuls, praetors, 
and censors, while maintaining the external prestige of their title, 
in reality became of much less importance than the tribunes of the 
plebs, who had the right of bringing suit against them, and also 
of fining them.? 

That the same sequence of events took place at Naples, at 
Capua, and elsewhere, is consistent with the laws of history and 
of mankind. We are not surprised, therefore, that at Naples 
the demarch possessed greater authority than the archon. And 
we should expect to find Hadrian holding the office of archon (Spart., loc. cit). 
But since the inscription of Faustinus given by Sogliano throws light on the passage 
in Strabo (v, p. 246 C.), and shows that in 71 A. D. the demarch had the greater 
authority in Naples, we not only understand the passage from the author of the 
life of Hadrian, but we are led to the conclusion that, in the democratic constitu- 
tion of Naples, the demarch, just as the tribune of the plebs at Rome, ended by 
obtaining the advantage, and attained the leading position even in the matter of 
official precedence, while at Rome, as far as appearances went, the patrician magi- 
stracy never lost its prestige. 

By this I do not claim to decide a difficult question, which may be settled at a 
later period by the discovery of some new document. I wish merely to present a 
hypothesis. Moreover, that the revolutionary process pertaining to the tribunes of 
the plebs, or tpoordrat tod Syyov, occurred also in the cities of Campania, may be 
seen, for example, from the history of Cumae at the time of Aristodemus Malacus 
(Dion. Hal. vii. 4.). 

t Mommsen, Rém. Staatsrecht, II, pp. 304 ff. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 327 


it is not improbable that Rome, finding there a system similar to 
that which she herself developed, should have taken from Naples 
the title of svy«AnTos or Snmapxos for use in her correspondence 
with the Greek cities. Certainly, from Sicily or Magna Graccia, 
rather than from Greece itself, she borrowed the institution of the 
plebeian aediles and censors. The exact parallel between the 
Roman census and the Attic é€éraows has been noted by Momm- 
sen, although he seems wrong in thinking the fact that there were 
two censors in Sicily at the time of Verres to be a peculiarity of 
that island. It seems natural to suppose that Rome took this 
institution from Sicily, or Thurii, or Naples, just as the introduc- 
tion of foreign grain, and the necessity of providing a magistrate 
to have it in charge, led to the creation of the plebeian aediles, 
to the introduction of the plebeian cult of Ceres, and to the selection 
of the priestesses of the goddess from Sicily, or Velia, or Naples. 
Finally, it is most reasonable to suppose that the censors and 
aediles of Thurii and Naples were similar to those of Athens, the 
metropolis of these two places.* 


t For the Sicilian censors, of whom there were two in each city, see Cic. Verr. ii. 
131 ff. There is probably an allusion to the quinquennial census in the dla wévre 
éréwy of the much-disputed Taorminan tablets, and also in the law of Thurii, 
according to which it was necessary dla wévre ér&v orparnyeiv (Arist. Pol. v. 
6. 8; p. 1307 Bk.). This system is best explained by bringing it into relation with 
the chronology of the Olympiads as imitated by Croton and Sybaris, and which, 
even before the time of Timaeus, seems to have been accepted by Philistus (see 
fr. 6 M.=Steph. Byz., s. v. Avun). We cannot decide with certainty whether 
there was any connection with the earlier local Greek magistracies of Naples in the 
case of the dpxwv dla wévre ér&v riunrixds (Kaibel, Inscr. Gr., Ital. et Sic., 741, 
742) corresponding to the [Iviri quinquennales of the Romans. 

In regard to Sicily, there is no reason for holding, with Mommsen, that the 
two censors represent a Roman creation. They represent rather an indigenous 
magistracy, continued by the Romans much as they continued, for instance, under 
the name of /ex Hieronica, an agrarian law which seems in its main features to 
have been similar to one which was in force at the time of Timoleon. For this 
see my “Legislazione di Diocle”’ in the Studi ital. di filol. classica (Florence, 1900). 
A like continuation is shown in the case of the sacred magistracies which, until 
the time of Caesar, the Romans allowed to thrive in those Sicilian cities to which 
they did not send colonies. Thus at Syracuse the supreme magistrate remained 
a priest of Zeus (Diod. xvi. 70. 6; Cic. Verr. II. ii. 126), at Catana a priest of 
Dionysus (ibid., II. iv. 50), and at Cephaloedis was a priest also (ibid., II. ii. 128). 
A final confirmation is given by the inscriptions of Buscemi (published by Orsi, 


328 ANCIENT ITALY 


Thus from Sicily or Magna Graecia, and not from Greece 
proper, came probably the statue of Silenus which became the 
symbol of popular liberty at Rome.* | And when ancient writers 
tell us that the Roman constitution was merely an imitation of 
that of Sparta,? it is clear to one who understands the nature and 
value of tradition that they would in reality have us understand 
that the Romans, like the Samnites, received the germs of Greek 
civilization which were spread through the agency of Spartan 
Tarentum. This conclusion was reached through observation 
of early usages, both private and public which occur naturally 
among different peoples. It was spread by the Tarentines, as 
ancient writers tell us, to the Samnite and Messapian tribes, and 
through Greek authors received credence also at Rome.3 

The best example of a political conception which was handed 
on through the Italiots to the Samnites, and through them to Rome, 
is given by the very word Italia. Whatever may have been the 
origin and meaning of this name, there is no doubt that it was 
adopted -by the Greeks of Magna Graecia, who called themselves 
Italiots, and who indicated by this the country which they had 
colonized and civilized. The title was then claimed by those 
powerful Sabine tribes which in the first century B. c. still contended 
for supremacy with Rome, and which succeeded in at least gain- 
ing a condition of perfect equality. The Romans applied the 
words Jtalia and Jtalici, and not Romani and Latini, to the whole 
of the territory of the peninsula under their control, and embraced 
by them more than Latium vetus and Latium adiectum. It is evi- 
N.S., Nov., 1899, p. 458), in which, in connection with the consuls for 35 A. D., 
mention is made of the dudliodos év Zupaxovcas. 

t See above, p. 264. 


2 Athen. iv, p. 274 f: miunodyevor (i. e. the Romans) xara wdvra rhv Aake- 
Saiwovlwy wodirelay, The same conception animates the tradition followed by 
Dion. Hal. i. 13. 23, where he states that the Romans received from the Spartans 
the institution of the 300 equites; cf. Plin. viii. 24. 4.- 

3Strab. V, p. 250. See also my Storia della Sicilia, etc., I, p. 613. Those 
critics who, in noting the points of contact between Roman and Spartan institu- 
tions, think their explanation is found in primitive Aryan customs, overlook the 
fact that these institutions, which are often precisely identical with those of the 
Aryans, are found among Semitic peoples as well. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 329 


dent, however, that this came about much later than the alliance 
with Capua in 338 B.C., at the time of the much more important 
league with the Italiots and Samnitzs.' In fact, the Samnites were 
no less proud of the name of “Italy” than were the descendants 
of the early Greek colonists. 

The origin of the Twelve Tables shows better than anything 
else the extent of Italiot influence on Rome. The subject is not 
easy to handle. We possess more or less numerous fragments both 
of the legislation of Solon and of the various Greek states, and 
also of the earliest Roman laws; but rarely have characteristic 
or well-explained portions of any length come down to us. More- 
over, the Greek laws contain general principles connected with 
ideas of property and of the family which are far different from 
those of the Romans. Thus the Twelve Tables and other Roman 
laws regarding the family are conceived on the plan of strict agna- 
tion, and take no account of the institution of the éwv«Anpos (a 
daughter who inherits in default of male issue) which appears jin 
the laws of Athens and Thurii. In these latter laws, on the other 
hand, we find none of the dispositions regarding the care of orphans 
which aroused the admiration of the ancient writers who examined 
the laws of Charondas.?. The great difficulty involved in making 
such comparisons is shown by the fact that Mommsen, the most 
recent and best-known interpreter of the Roman penal code, 
although he admits the validity of the tradition which affirms the 
Greek origin of the laws of the Twelve Tables, instead of examining 
the vast problem in its whole extent, limits himself to one new and 
noteworthy linguistic proof of such Greek influence. 

Ancient writers are unanimous in their opinion that Roman 
legislation was modeled after that of Athens, and critics (whether 
or not they reject the mention of the Roman embassy to Athens 
about 453 B.C.) agree in admitting this tradition of Greek influ- 
ence to be trustworthy. But, save for a few isolated cases, or 

t For the origin of the Latin league, see my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 229 ff. 


For the difference in meaning between nomen Latinum and socii Italici, I refer to 
the splendid pages of Mommsen, Rém. Staatsrecht, III, pp. 607 ff., 645 ff. 


2 Diod. xii. 12 f. 3 Mommsen, Rém. Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), p. 127. 


33° ANCIENT ITALY 


later additions, there was no direct borrowing from a given legis- 
lation of earlier date, although later history can offer numerous 
examples of such borrowing.t The fragments of Roman laws 
which have come down to us give evidence of a more ancient period 
of legal procedure than can be shown for the Greek cities, or, 
better yet, for Athens. It will suffice to recall the Roman disposi- 
tion concerning retaliation (¢alio). If in some fragments of the 
Twelve Tables there is evidence of later composition, without 
doubt this shows later additions to the primitive code. I have 
elsewhere advanced the theory that the real codification of the 
Twelve Tables, instead of dating from the time of the mythical 
Virginia and the decemvir Appius Claudius (i. e., about 453-450 
B. C.), occurred more probably about 312-304 B. C., at the time of 
the censor Appius Claudius, and of Cn. Flavius, who for the first 
time published the civil code, which had hitherto been jealously 
guarded by the pontifices. Naturally, what was codified about 
312-304 was for the most part the customary procedure by which 
for several centuries the Latin tribes, and particularly the city of 
Rome, had been governed, and which, through a process of 
evolution, the chronological phrases of which we can no 
longer trace, was either modified or amended as necessity de- 
manded.? 

Certain facts show conclusively that the laws of Solon were 
not transplanted bodily from Attica, although for certain portions, 
such as the funerary laws and those pertaining to the right of 
association, the declarations of the ancients are too explicit to be 
disregarded. On the other hand, other data show that the Romans 
had no need of traveling to the distant shores of Attica to learn the 
results of Greek legislative wisdom. At about the time when the 
Roman embassy is said to have sailed for Greece, or even in 
the same year, according to a trustworthy chronological calcu- 
lation, Athens founded the purely Greek colony of Thurii (446 


t Take, for example, mediaeval maritime legislation. 

2 See my Storia di Roma, I, 1, pp. 569 ff.; II, 2, pp. 630 ff. Those familiar 
with ancient Germanic legislation will find more than one point of resemblance 
between it and the earliest Roman codification. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 331 


B.C.);* and but a few years later, with the aid of Athens, the 
Rhodian Chalcidian Parthenope awoke to new life under the 
name of Neapolis (about 433 B. C.).? 

On the classic soil of Magna Graecia they did not await the 
spreading of Athenian influence before codifying the laws. The 
legislation of Locri, known by the name of the law-giver, Zaleucus, 
and that of the Chalcidian cities of Italy and Sicily, connected, 
according to tradition, with the name of Charondas, had attained 
a great reputation either earlier than the time of Solon, or at least 
at a period but slightly later. With these traditions and legisla- 
tions are connected rather strange statements concerning Zaleucus 
and Pythagoras, both of whom are said to have received Roman 
citizenship. Epicharmus, too, is said to have made mention of 
relations between Pythagoras and the Romans.’ I shall not dis- 
cuss here whether Rome received her knowledge of Hellenic laws 
through an embassy sent from Greece, as one tradition has it, 
or rather through some Greek philosopher who came to Rome, 
as another tradition seems to affirm.4 Some weight should be 
given to the version of Tacitus, according to which models for the 
laws which made up the Twelve Tables were taken, oot from 
Athens alone, but from all the cities which could offer useful ele- 

t The date of Thurii is discussed by Pappritz, Thurii, seine Entstehung und 
seine Entwickelung (Berlin, 1891). 

2See my “La missione politica e civile di Napoli nell’ antichita, Flegrea, 
Naples, February, 1900. 

3 These passages are discussed in my Storia di Roma, I, 1, chaps. i and iv, 
passim. In the prohibition against burying within the city walls, A. Chiappelli 
(“Sopra alcuni frammenti delle XII tavole nelle loro relazioni con Eraclito e 
Pitagora,” Archivio giuridico of Serafini, 1885) sees a connection with the tradition 
concerning Hermodorus and the teachings of Heraclitus. Another point of con- 
tact between the laws of the twelve tables and those of Zaleucus and Charondas 
seems to me to exist in the laws of Locri and Croton, already referred to, which 
forbid the use of wine (Ael. V. H. ii. 37; Alc. Sic. apud Athen. x, p. 441 a; see 
above). 

41 hope shortly to treat of this more in detail. The legend of Hermodorus 
seems to have arisen in opposition to that concerning the embassy to Athens, and 
is with difficulty connected with the legend referring to the legislation of Servius 
Tullius, or to the embassy sent to Greece for the same purpose at the time of the 
kings. 


332 ANCIENT ITALY 


ments for codification.t There is also something in the state- 
ment of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, according to which the Roman 
ambassadors not merely betook themselves to Athens, but visited 
also the Greek cities of Italy. Certainly at Thurii, about 446 
B. C., was partially published that codex of Attic laws which is 
supposed to have gone into effect at Rome either four years earlier 
or, according to another tradition, in the very same year; and 
on that occasion considerable choice was exercised in the selec- 
tion of certain laws of other places. Such selection, according 
to the version of Dionysius and Tacitus, constituted the chief 
value of the Twelve Tables. The laws of Thurii were compiled 
by the sage Protagoras, who collected what was best in those of 
Locri, of the various Chalcidian cities, of the cities of the Pelo- 
ponnesus and Crete, and, finally, of Athens. The new code of 
Protagoras, given out under the name of the aged Charondas, 
spread from Attic Thurii to Athens, and, either from there or from 
the Rhodian cities of Sicily, to Cos and Asia Minor, to be finally 
received in distant Cappadocia.* 


t Tac. Ann. iii. 27: “creati decemviri et accitis quae usquam egregia.” 

2 Dion. Hal. x. 54: év 6@ rE abr@ Kaipg mwapeyévorro awd Te ’AOnvadv Kal rdv 
év “Iradots “EXAnvidwy mbdewv ol mpéoBets. I am far from believing, however, 
that an embassy, properly speaking, occurred, especially at the time and in the way 
indicated by Dionysius. 

It is interesting to note that while those critics who are less disposed to blindly 
accept all tradition, declare there is some truth in the theory regarding the Greek 
derivation of the ancient Roman laws, the modern Italian school, which aims to 
glorify the mythical deeds of our race, and to confirm the less trustworthy side of 
tradition, refuses the version of ancient writers who unanimously affirm that the 
Twelve Tables contained laws which imitated in the main those of Athens. Cicero 
asserts this with all certainty (Pro Flacco 62): ‘‘adsunt Athenienses unde huma- 
nitas docrtina, religio, fruges, iura, leges ortae atque in omnis terras distributae 
putantur;” also Pliny (viii. 24. 4): “‘habet ante oculos hanc esse terram quae 
nobis miserit iura, quae leges non victis sed petentibus dederit, Athenas esse quae 
adeas, Lacedaemonem esse quam regas.’’ For Sparta, see above, p. 328, note 2. 


3 As I have elsewhere observed, the year 446 B. c. in which Thurii was founded, 
according to the computation of Diod. xii. 7, 9, corresponds exactly to the 453 B. c. 
of Liv. iii. 32 (system of Varro), and to the 452 B. c. of Dion. Hal. x. 53. In this 
year, according to these last two authors, the three Roman ambassadors are said to 
have gone to Athens to study the laws of Solon. 


4 The early statements regarding the life and legislation of Charondas and 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 3 33 


Can it be admitted that a later diffusion of this nature took 
place along the shores of the peninsula? And did that which 
penetrated from Thurii to Athens, and possibly also to Attic 
Naples, spread from there and along the coast of Campania to 
Latium, the region which stood in such close relations with Naples 
and with Campania? We have too few elements to admit of a 
positive solution of such problems, although there are too many 
analogies and other indications to permit us to totally reject the 
hypothesis. It has often been noted, for example, that a fragment 
from Theophrastus pertaining to the laws of Thurii, and regarding 


Zaleucus have caused modern writers much perplexity, and have led to very dis- 
similar conclusions. ‘Thus the same set of traditions are ascribed to Zaleucus, to 
Charondas, and to Diocles of Syracuse. Diodorus states that the lawgiver Cha- 
rondas lived at the time of the foundation of Thurii, but by other authors he is said 
to have been almost a contemporary of Solon. At Sybaris, according to Pseudo- 
Scymnus (vs. 347) were in force the laws of Zaleucus which, according to Ephorus 
apud Strab. vi, p. 260 C., were selected from the laws of the Cretans, Spartans, 
and Athenians. We also learn from Ephorus (ib7d.) that these laws were accepted 
by the inhabitants of Thurii. 

It seems to me that these difficulties are eliminated if we remember that at 
the time of the founding of Thurii the sage Protagoras of Abdera was intrusted with 
the formation of the new code for that city (see Heracl. Pont. apud Diog. Laert. 
ix. 8.50). In the colonization of Thurii, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans took 
part; in a word, citizens of all Greece; and certainly Protagoras knew of the 
various laws of these peoples. From this it is clear why it was said that Zaleucus 
had taken into consideration the legislation of Lycurgus, Solon, and Minos. 
Admitting that the code of Locri was in part accepted by the neighboring Thurii, 
it is seen why Zaleucus was regarded as the lawgiver of the last-named place. 
Finally, the fairly widespread tradition that Zaleucus and Charondas lived at the 
time, and were followers of Pythagoras (see Diog. Laert. viii. 1. 16; Iambl. De 
vit. Pythag. 33, 104, 130, 172; Porphyr. De vit. Pythag. 21) acquires meaning only 
when we recognize that the Pythagorean doctrines had the same influence upon 
the constitution of Thurii and Locri that they did upon that of Tarentum. The 
fact that Charondas, although a contemporary of Solon, is reported as living at 
the time of Pythagoras and of the foundation of Thurii finds, as I have elsewhere 
noted (see my Storia di Roma, I, 1, pp. 580 ff., and my article entitled ‘‘A propo- 
sito della legislazione di Diocle Siracusano,”’ Florence, 1899), a parallel in the 
actions of Appius Claudius, the censor of 312, which are in part attributed to Appius 
Claudius, the decemvir of 452-450 B. C. 

For the spreading of the laws of Charondas to Athens, see Hermipp. apud 
Athen. xiv, p. 619 6; to Cos, see Herond. Mim. ii. 48; and to Mazaca in Cappa- 
docia, see Strab. xii, p. 540 C. ‘ 


334 ANCIENT ITALY 


the sale of certain objects, shows decided resemblance to an analo- 
gous Roman disposition." 

At any rate, there took place in Magna Graecia, if not the 
first, certainly the most important, codification of the classic world, 
and one which embraced more than the views and experience of a 
single city or of a single people. In that region was practically 
begun the movement of universal codification which was later to 
become the object of the studies of Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, 
and Callimachus, and which formed the base of the ius gentiwm and 
the ius naturale, which some still wrongly think are the result of 
the juridical knowledge of the Romans alone.? 

The fragments of the code of Thurii which is attributed to 
Charondas call our attention to two facts. In the first place, 
we learn that the legislation of the Twelve Tables was not in 
harmony with the national character of the Romans, if, as it seems, 
it differed from that which previously was in force in such particu- 
lars as those pertaining to the law of obligations and to the pro- 
tection of orphans. In addition, it is clear that the laws of the 
Italiot cities represent a much more advanced stage of civilization 
than the Roman people had as yet attained. 

A detailed comparison between the features of private right 
in the code of Charondas and in Roman legislation would require 
more space than the present volume admits. Awaiting the fuller 
treatment which I hope to give the subject, I here limit my justifi- 
cation of the statement to a reference to the legislative dispositions 
of the two peoples in regard to educational matters. Ancient 
writers attest the difficulty experienced in introducing the study 
of grammar and rhetoric at Rome. It will suffice for our purpose 
to refer to the senatus consulta of 161 and of 92 B. c., which decreed 
the expulsion from Rome of Greek philosophers and Latin rhetori- 

t Theophr. apud Stob. Flor. xliv. 22; cf. Hoffmann, Beitrage zur Geschichte 
d. griech. und rém. Recht (Vienna, 1870). 


2 Also in this connection it is probable that Greece was preceded by the oriental 
monarchies, just as she was anticipated by Egypt in regard’ to various features of 
the penal code. In the same way there may some day be found something of truth 
in that which was attributed to the humane King Bocchoris (734-729 B. C.?); 
see Diod. i. 65. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 335 


cians. We may also recall how the education of children was 
intrusted to slaves, and how during the last two centuries of the 
Republic only a few of the wealthiest and most powerful Romans 
sought to have teachers, to whom were intrusted not only their own 
children, but also those of their friends.‘ The institution of muni- 
cipal schools proper, on Roman soil, is, as is known, the result of 
the policy of Caesar and of the Empire. 

In this respect also the life of the Greeks was far different, and 
we learn from Herodotus that a public school existed at Chics at 
the beginning of the fifth century B.c.? Moreover, that the same 
conditions of culture existed in the cities of Magna Graecia and 
Sicily, where philosophers of the Pythagorean school were allowed 
to take part in the government of the state, and where scientists 
such as Pythagoras and Empedocles could control the destinies 
of Croton, of Metapontum, and of Agrigentum, is shown by one 
of the best dispositions of the laws of Thurii which are attributed 
to Charondas, in which is imposed upon parents the obligation of 
having their children instructed. Thus compulsory public instruc- 
tion was recognized on the classic soil of Magna Graecia, at a time 
when the Greeks, regarding with disdain the indigenous peoples of 
the peninsula who were far behind them in culture, called the 
Etruscans and Romans barbarians. Without doubt, whatever 

t See Suet. De gramm.iff.; De rhetor.iff.; cf. Marquardt, Rom Staatsverw., 
IV, p. 95. We are also informed by ancient writers of the miserable condition of 
teachers up to the beginning of the Empire. As an example of this, see the inscrip- 
tion of the Ausonian teacher Furius Philocalus, who died at Capua, and who, to 
make a living, followed the profession of notary as well (CIL, X, 3969). Vespa- 
sian was the first to establish honorary stipends for professors (Suet. Vesp. 18). 
It is a question whether from this we may conclude, as does Marquardt (op. cit., 
Il2, p. 107; cf. the material in Liebenam, Stddteverw. im rém. Kaiserreich (Leipzig, 
1900], p. 76), that official instruction was then introduced in Rome for the first 
time, or whether the annua centana for the payment of instructors was then first 
established. Certainly the plans of Caesar embraced the protection of teachers of 
the liberal arts; Suet. Caes. 42: “‘omnisque medicinam Romae professos et libera- 


lium artium doctores quo libentius et ipsi urbem incolerent et ceteri adpeterent, 
civitate donavit.” 


2 Herodot. vi. 27. 


3 Diod. xii. 12. 5: évouobérnoe yap r&v mwokirSy rods viets dravras parOdvev 
ypduuara, xopryyovces Tis wbdews Tovs pigHods Tots didacKxddos. 


' 336 ANCIENT ITALY 


impulses for the study of the arts and sciences came to the Romans 
and Etruscans must have been received from Magna Graecia and 
Sicily. It was not by mere chance that Aristoxenus of Tarentum, 
the well-known follower of Aristotle, was the first to say that the 
Messapians, Lucanians and Romans sent disciples to Pythagoras." 
With this statement is evidently connected the ancient Roman 
official tradition that King Numa was a pupil of the philosopher 
of Samos. 

An examination of all the literary and moral impulses which 
came from Magna Graecia and Sicily to Latium would, on the one 
hand, lead to a repetition of some of the observations which I have 
elsewhere had occasion to make, and, on the other, would oblige 
me against my will to treat the subject far too hastily.? It will 
therefore be permitted me, in conclusion, to give only as much as a 
brief but accurate investigation of the facts will allow. 

First should be considered the religions and cults which, even 
before the influence of literature properly speaking, prepared the 
Romans for the reception of foreign learning. Just as the cults 
of Demeter and Mercury seem to have brought to Rome the 
legends concerning Menenius Agrippa, Sp. Melius, and other 
well-deserving patrons of the plebs when oppressed by famine, 
so the cults of Diana, of Castor and Pollux, and of Diomede, 
coming from the Chalcidian cities of Sicily and Magna Gracecia, or 
spreading from Apulia and the neighboring regions, favored the 
diffusion of those sacred tales which received literary form in 
the manifold myths relating to Ulysses and Aeneas, and to the 
story of the battle of Lake Regillus.s The cult of Aphrodite 

t Aristox., fr. 5 M.: mpocHdOov 5’ adr@ fi. e., to Pythagoras] &s pneu ’ Apis- 
tégevos Kal Aevxavol kat Meoodmioe kal Ilevxérioe cal ‘Pwyato. With all due 
respect for Rohde (Rhein. Mus., XXVII [1872], p. 57), this passage has hitherto 
been misunderstood. For its correct interpretation see my Storia di Roma, I, 1, 
p- 384. With the above reference is connected, it seems to me, the allusion to 
the wisdom of Pontius Telesinus, who is said to have heard Archytas and Plato at 
Tarentum; cf. Storia di Roma, I, 2,. p..678. 

2See my Storia di Roma, I, 1, chap. i. 

3 See the preceding chapter for the influence of the cults. from Sicily. In the 


case of Castor and Pollux it is enough to recall that the legend concerning their 
appearance at the battle of the Sagras was also localized at Cyrene and Agrigen- 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 337 


Victrix possibly came to Rome from Thurii, and from Tarentum 
that of Dis, which was connected with the secular games. From 
Cumae certainly came the cult of Apollo, as is evident from the 
tale of the Sibyl who gave the Sibylline books to Tarquinius.' 


tum. It is intimately connected with the introduction into various regions of the 
cults of these divinities. See the passages quoted in Preller, Griech. Myth., 13, 
pp. 99 ff. For this cult at Tusculum, see Albert, Le culte de Castor et Pollux en 
Ttalie (Paris, 1883). 

We find the cult of Diomede at Lavinium (App. B. C. ii. 20; Serv. ad Aen. 
viii. 9); see my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 702, for its connection with the Roman 
myths. 

Among the many cults which came from southern Italy to Latium should also 
be mentioned that of the Argive Juno. According to Aelian N. A. xi. 16, the Juno 
worshiped at Lanuvium was the Argive Hera (cf. Prop. iv. 8). It is obvious that 
she was introduced through the agency of the Greeks, who held in special reverence 
the temple of Argive Juno at the mouth of the Silarus (Strab. v, p. 252 C.; Plin. 
N. H. iii. 70; and see above, p. 315, note 5). In other words, this cult came from 
Posidonia, whence it also seems to have spread into the neighboring Campania (see 
the type of coins of the Campanian Hyria, Head, Hist. num., 32). The cult of Argive 
Juno is also found at Tibur (CJL, XIV, 3556), and may well have been brought 
there at a fairly early period, since the early legends (see Cat. et Sext. apud Sol. 
ii. 8; Verg. Aen. vii. 670 ff.; Hor. Carm. ii. 6. 5) make Tibur of Argive origin. 

That the cult of Diana on the Aventine should be connected with that of 
Phocaea and Velia is evident from the words of Strabo (vi, p. 280 C.), who says 
that the statue of the Aventine Diana was similar to that of the Diana of Mar- 
seilles. It is merely a question whether this cult was brought directly to Rome, 
as one would think from the more or less mythical account of Trogus Pompeius 
(see Iust. xlii. 3. 4), or by way of Aricia. This latter hypothesis seems the more 
reasonable on account of the connection of the cult of Servius Tullius with the 
Lake of Aricia. From Aricia also came to Rome (Hyin. Fab. 250; Serv. ad 
Aen. ii. 116) the cult of Orestes, which was closely connected with that of Diana 
of Phaselis, and was held in honor among the Chalcidians of Messina and Regium. 
From these passages we likewise learn that the reputed ashes of Orestes were 
interred in the temple of Saturn in the Forum. And since this temple, according 
to the most credible Roman tradition, was founded in the second half of the fourth 
century (see above, p. 313, note 1), it follows that we have an allusion to the cults 
which came from Aricia to Rome after 338 B. c. (see Liv. viii. 14. 3). 

In connection with the cult of Diana, attention might be called to the archaic 
relief found near Aricia; cf. Overbeck, Gesch. d. griech. Plastik, I, p. 216; Sittl, 
Archeologie d. Kunst, p. 627. 

t For the cult of Tarentum and of Dis localized at the Tarentum or Terentum, 
see my Storia di Roma, I, 1, chaps. iii, iv. Without doubt the account of Val. 
Max. ii. 3. 5 alludes to Tarentum, and we must reject the hypothesis of Preller- 
Jordan (Rém. Myth., 113, p. 82) that Tarentum is derived from the Sabine terenum 
=“soft” or “moist.” Certain ancient writers are also wrong, it seems to me, in 


338 ANCIENT ITALY 


The same is true in the case of the cult of Hercules. There are 
two opinions concerning the origin of this cult. Although most 
critics agree in thinking the Latino-Sabine Hercules merely a 
repetition of the Greek Heracles, who in turn found his prototype 
in eastern religions, others, as is well known, think that Hercules 
was an indigenous divinity who from the beginning had nothing 
in common with the Greek god, with whom he was not confused 
till a later period. To me the former theory seems preferable, 
although it makes little difference for our present purpose which is 
accepted. I wish merely to recall that the myth of Cacus, as 
connected with that of Hercules, is the well-known legend of Geryon 
as sung by Stesichorus, and localized along the shores of Magna 
Graecia at Pandosia, Croton, and Regium, and especially at Her- 
culaneum in Campania, at Naples, and at Baiae, where is still 
shown the road, near Lake Lucrinus, which is said to have been 
made by the hero, and which is the oldest road in Italy. Cer- 
tainly the annalist Gellius made Cacus come to Rome from Cam- 
pania; and the bronze bull, and the other monuments near the 
Porta Trigemina recalling this hero and his slayer Hercules, are 
found precisely at the spot where the road which led from Rome 
to Capua commenced.* 
explaining Tarentum as quod ripas terat (Serv. ad Aen. xiii. 63). Without hesita- 
tion I connect the Tarentine games with the image of the Tarentine Europa (see 
Babelon, op. cit., II, p.-519; cf. the coin of the Volteii, ibid., p. 568; see above, 
P- 317, note 2), and also with the myth concerning the forming of the island in 
the Tiber from the crops from the land of the Tarquins, consecrated to the gods of 
the lower world (cf. Liv. ii. 5). 

We have a reference to the cults which came to Rome from the neighboring 
Thurii in the legendary account of Pseud.-Plut. Paral]. 37. But the passage is 
more than doubtful, and it is not certain, as I have conjectured (Storia di Roma, 
I, 2, p. 499), that Tovgov should be corrected to Govpwv, From a paleographical 
standpoint the change from one form to the other may be explained as an error 


derived from a poor reproduction of the Latin form Thurium. 

For the introduction of the cult of Apollo to Rome, see my Storia di Roma, I, 
I, Pp. 349- 

t Gell. apud Sol. i. 8=fr. 7* P.: “unde venerat redux, praesidiis amplioribus 
occupato circa Vulturnum et Campanian regno ... .” Ihave attempted to prove 
in my Storia di Roma (I, 2, pp. 439, 560) that the cult of Hercules in Rome should 
be connected with the censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus and the Via Appia, 
and also with the conquest of Campania and Samnium. Not merely at Rome, 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS~— 339 


The rapid decline of Italiot civilization caused by the Sabine 
invasions interrupted for a certain number of years, and trans- 
formed, if it did not destroy, those relations with Latium and Rome 


but in the West in general, along the shores of the Ionian Sea, near the Lucrine 
Lake, in Campania, among the Graian Alps, and in the Pyrenees, the myth of 
Hercules was connected with the security of the roads. 

Without doubt, what has been attributed to the Roman Hercules in regard 
to Cacus, as has often been observed, is merely a localization of the myth of Geryon, 
of Croton, and of all the other monsters and local heroes whom Hercules is said 
to have slain. The opinion of Bréal, that the myth of Hercules and Cacus contains 
a naturalistic element which also appears in the Vedic myth of Indra and Vritra, 
does not imply that such a content is excluded from the legend of Geryon as told 
by Stesichorus. Indeed, everything favors the contrawy supposition. It is also 
probable that in the final analysis the accounts pertaining to Hercules and Heracles 
may be identified with those regarding the Chaldean Izdubar. 

I confess I cannot understand the objections of certain linguists to the identi- 
fication of the Greek Heracles with the Latin Hercules, since the latter name is 
nothing but the Greek form adapted to the exigencies of the Latin language. 
There is the same relation between the name of the Graeco-Campanian city Hera- 
cleion and Herculaneum, the name which was given it by the Romans. 

The fact that the name “Hercules” is 4 Roman transcription of the Greek 
form “Heracles” does not prove that there was not a cult of Italic origin which was 
fused with that of the Greek hero. Im fact, Hercules stands in the same relation 
to Semo Sanctus and to Dius Fidius as Ceres stands to Demeter; with this differ- 
ence, however, that in the case of Ceres the name of the divinity remained indige- 
nous, although she was worshiped according to Greek rites; whereas in the case 
of Hercules both the name and the cult remained Greek. It seems possible to 
explain this by considering that the cult of Hercules, just as that of Apollo, Aescu- 
lapius, etc., was introduced into Rome at a time when Greek culture was meeting 
with general acceptance. On the other hand, the cults of Saturn, Ceres, Diana, 
and Venus, which preserved the indigenous names, point to an older period in which 
the rites alone were introduced, and connected with existing deities. 

The failure to recognize the true character of the Graeco-Latin Heracles- 
Hercules has been caused in part by the exaggerations in the theory of Bréal, and 
also by the statements of Reifferscheid, who, in describing the deeds of the Italic 
divinity, did not take into consideration that possibly among the Greek legends of 
Heracles which in the course of time came to be regarded as secondary, there may 
be analogies to those connected with the Latin hero. To Hercules, moreover, may 
also be attributed the deeds of the ancient Semo Sanctus, with whom, ancient writers 
tell us, the Greek Heracles was identified, although this had no connection with the 
derivation of one name from the other. Be that as it may, the Greek character of 
the cult of Hercules is constantly affirmed by the ancient Romans, who recognized 
in him a Greek god (Liv. i. 15), and who, because of this cult, termed Rome a Greek 
city. See Strabo (v, p. 230 C.), who refers to the annalist Acilius (or Caelius ?). 
In spite of all this, the very ones who claim to adhere to the authority of Livy 
and tradition, deny the identification Heracles=Hercules. 


340 ANCIENT ITALY 


which must have commenced as early, at least, as the end of the 
seventh century B.c. The result of this. was the favoring of the 
relations of the Etruscans, Latins, and Oscans with the cities of 
Sicily, especially Syracuse, which derived much profit from this 
state of affairs. 

Tradition is in general silent in regard to the importance of 
these earliest relations between Rome and the Italiots. We are 
not always in a position to determine whether some of those which 
we have noted were due to the influence of poets who continued 
the work of Stesichorus, and of historians such as Hippys, who 
derived their origin from Chalcidian Regium, or whether we should 
not regard them as the result of traditions current among writers 
of Tarentum and the Messapian peninsula at the time of the first 
Samnite wars, from Aristoxenus down to Livius Andronicus, 
Ennius, and Pacuvius. 

Ample and carefully conducted excavations, not at Rome 
alone, but throughout the Latin plain and the Volscian territory— 
regions which promise a rich archaeological harvest—may make 
possible, if not the solution, at least the better formulation, of this 
problem, viz.: Was there, even if to a lesser degree, an intellectual 
influence in the field of religion and art, corresponding to the 
important commercial relations which existed with the Italiot 
cities, and especially with Chalcidian Regium, Cumae, and Pho- 
caean Velia? We already know that Rome had occupied the 
attention of the historians of Syracuse and Sicily, from Antiochus, 
Philistus, and Callias, to Timaeus, Philinus of Agrigentum, and 
Silenus of Calacte. Certainly strong Italiot influence was felt 
after the commencement of relations with the Samnites and Taren- 
tum. From Tarentum, thanks to Livy, Ennius and Pacuvius, 
there spread to Rome the branches of literature most diffused 
among the Italiots, and also the Pythagorean doctrines, of which 
Appius Claudius, the censor of 312 B.C., is said to have been a 
follower. From Tarentum. came to Rome that Ennius who 
revealed the scientific results and the philosophical speculations of 
the Siceliots. Leaving aside the poem on the 9dv7ra@ea, which 
seems to be a reproduction of that of Archestratus of Gela, Ennius 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS 341 


popularized among the Latins the doctrines of Epicharmus, and 
also those of Euhemerus of Messina, destined to exercise great 
influence on Roman religion, philosophy, and historiography. It 
will suffice to recall Picus and Lupa, the nurse of Romulus, two 
sacred animals, and protectors of the Latin race, which were 
transformed into human beings by the earliest Latin annalists.! 

In the midst of this tangled maze of Greek currents which 
preceded the period of greater influence directly from Athens, 
Alexandria, and Pergamum, special attention should be called 
to one particular region of the peninsula for the importance of 
the part it played in the education of the future rulers of the world. 
I allude to Campania, which never ceased to be an important cen- 
ter of culture and civilization, even after it came into the hands 
of the Samnites, who themselves became famous under the name 
of Campanians, and who seized Cumae, Nola, and Pompeii, and 
founded Nuceria. I shall elsewhere treat of the importance of 
the relations between Naples and Capua, and between Naples, 
Tarentum, and Thurii, for the later development of Oscan culture, 
and the production of that peculiar literary product termed Atellan, 
which became exceptionally popular at Rome, and which seems 
to have some connection with the @Avaxes which the Tarentines 
received with great favor, and which, in the last analysis, find a 
precedent in the Sicilian literary productions of the fifth cen- 
tury. 

It was in Campania that authors whose names we are unable 
to give, told those adventures of Aristodemus of Cumae which 
furnish us the first glimpses of a political history of Rome.? In 
Campania possibly lived the author of the history of Cumae 
which narrated the mythical deeds of the seven kings, and the 


t J allude to well-known facts which I have brought out elsewhere in publica- 
tions to which I have made frequent reference in this article. It might also be 
noted in this connection that the myth of Anna, sister of Dido, which was later fused 
with that of Anna Perenna, contains elements which are easily understood if we 
think of an earlier localization of the legend of Aeneas on the shores of Thurii 
(see Ovid Fast. iii. 585). This is not surprising, since also the myth of Aeneas 
and the Trojans received localization in the region of Thurii and the neighboring 
cities (Schol. Lycophr. apud Serv. ad Verg. Georg. i. 103=Claud., fr. g1 P.). 

2 Diod. vii. 10; Dion. Hal. vii. 2 f.; Plut. De mul. virt. 26. 


342 ANCIENT ITALY 


arrival in Rome of the Sibyl. And, finally, Rome is indebted 
to Campania for the Naevius who, in describing the First Punic 
War, took occasion to introduce all of the myths bearing on the 
origin of Campania and Latium, and who, in creating Roman 
tragedy, set forth the deeds of the founder of the city. But while 
Samnite Campania gave to Rome the first author of a national 
epic, Greek Naples, the faithful ally of the Romans, produced the 
Eumachus who narrated the Second Punic War and the struggle of 
Rome against Hannibal.? Were the Fates more kind, it might 
be possible to establish that more than one of the passages in Livy 
relating to the wars against the Samnites, or to the taking of 
Naples in 326 B.C., were derived from some historian who was 
born, or who lived, either near or in Naples. It was probably 
also some historian of Naples, or of the neighboring Cumae, who 
was drawn upon by Lutatius when the latter wrote the history of 
Naples.4 It is obvious that Naples, the most advanced city of 
Italy at the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire, 
_ did not rise to such a degree of civilization through the aid and 
favor of the Romans, but that she had followed along the line of 
the noble traditions which date from the second half of the fifth 
century, or the time when Cumae and Athens called her into being.’ 

The various cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily exercised an 
enormous influence, both material and political, religious and 
literary, on the Roman people between the seventh and third 


t Miller, F. H. G., IV, p. 434; cf. Maas, De Sibyllarum indicibus (Gryphis- 
waldiae, 1879). 

2 Miiller, op. cit., III, p. ro2. 

3 Also on this occasion I may be permitted to refer to my Storia di Roma, I, 
2, pp. 487 ff., where I have attempted to show that the detailed accounts of Livy 
and Dionysius concerning the conquest of Naples and the relations of that city 
with Tarentum deserve credence, and are not, as Niese and other German scholars 
have thought late creations of the Roman annalist. 

4 The precious fragment of Lutatius apud Philarg. in Verg. Georg. iv. 564= 
fr. 2 P., relating to the origin of Naples as succeeding Parthenope, is fully under- 
stood when we recall the villa of the Lutatii Catuli at Baiae, and their habit of 
living in Campania, since it was from there that they introduced the velaria into 
Rome (Val. Max. ii. 3. 6; cf. Plin. N. H. xix. 23). 

5 In a special article I hope shortly to treat of the time when Naples, having 
lost all political importance, became exclusively the home of the Muses. 


ITALIOT, SAMNITE AND CAMPANIAN ELEMENTS = 343 


centuries B.c. If Roman tradition insists but little on this fact, 
and is more eager to show that Greece properly speaking, and 
the Hellenistic kingdoms, were her masters in the arts and sciences, 
this is explained by the fact that not until the third century did 
Rome spread beyond the confines of the peninsula, to become the 
foremost political state of the world, and to enter upon extended 
political relations with the Greek countries.t This took place 
when the Alexandrian and Pergamenean civilizations were in full 
flower. The brilliant memories of Athens were, in part at least, 
unforgotten, but the civilization of Pergamum and Alexandria 
represented really a further refinement, and as a living force 
exercised such fascination over the Romans as to force into the 
background, if not into oblivion, the remembrance of how much 
they had learned from the Italiots and Siceliots. This was favored 
both by the economic and political decadence of the greater portion 
of the cities of Magna Graecia, and by the ever-increasing political 
relations between Rome and the eastern countries. Thus the Ro- 
mans acted after the manner of those who give all the credit to the 
clever and famous teachers of the final years of their scientific educa- 
tion, and forget the humble instructors who gave them the first, and 
possibly the most important, impulses toward forming their minds. 

The Romans at the time of Caesar and Augustus, when con- 
sidering the invasion of Hellenic culture which took place after the 
victories of Titus Quintius Flaminius and Paulus Aemilius, and 
which made Roman civilization worthy of being compared with 
that of Greece, were naturally led to exclaim: 

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes 
. Intulit agresti Latio.? 

But if Roman writers had united a sense of complete objectivity 
with a full knowledge of the vicissitudes of their national his- 
tory, they would have expressed themselves differently. In the 
work in which Cicero, following, as he himself says, Greek authors, 
traces the first beginnings of the Roman people, there is certainly 


1 The comparatively recent origin of the direct political relations between 
Rome and Greece is explicitly affirmed by Polybius (ii. 12), who gives the date as 
228:B..C. 


2 Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 156. 


344 ANCIENT ITALY 


a partial exaggeration where we read that, at the time of Tarquinius 
Priscus, to the city “influxit non tenuis e Graecia rivulus, sed 
abondantissimus amnis illarum disciplinarium et artium.”!' At 
the beginning of the sixth century Rome was by no means fully 
acquainted with the science and culture of Greece. So true was 
this, indeed, that it was not until the following century, according 
to Varro, that she shook off the influence of Etruscan art suffi- 
ciently to build a temple in the Greek style.2_ However, the archaic 
pottery found on Faliscan territory and in the recent excavations 
in the Forum proves, if such a thing is necessary, that in the fifth 
century Rome was open to the vivifying influence of Magna 
Graecia, Sicily, and Phocaean Marseilles. The recent excava- 
tions in the Forum, which do not weaken, as has erroneously been 
stated, but rather confirm, the results of historical criticism, show 
the error of certain modern critics who have doubted the accuracy 
of the tradition which speaks of the relations of the Romans with 
the Liparaeans and the oracle at Delphi, about the end of the fifth 
century B.c.3 It was because the Romans from this time on were 
in commercial relations with the Greeks that they refrained from 
molesting the Greek ships, as did the inhabitants of Antium; and, 
just as the Etruscans of neighboring Caere, they protected the 
Greek mercantile marine, and sent treasures to Delphi.* Thus it 
was natural that Antiochus of Syracuse, and later Aristotle, Hera- 
clides Ponticus, and Theophrastus, should have treated of Rome 
in a friendly spirit. And it was also natural that the city which 
received on its hospitable shores and at its favorable markets the 
Greek merchants, should have received from the writers of Greece 
proper, from the fourth century on, the well-deserved:title of méAus 
“EAAnvis.® 
1 Cic. De re publ. ii. 32. 
2 Varr. apud Plin. N. H. xxxv. 154; cf. Vitruv. iii. 2. 27. 


3 For the embassy of the Romans to Delphi and their relations with the Lipa- 
raeans, wrongly denied by some writers, see my Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 26. 


4Strab. v, p. 221 C.; p. 232 C.; cf. Diod. xv. 1. 82; also chap. xxii, below. 
5 See the preceding chapter. 
6 Heracl. Pont. apud Plut. Cam. 22. 2; cf. Strab. v, pp. 231 C. ff. 


- XXII 


THE GREEK FLEET WHICH APPEARED OFF THE 
COAST OF LATIUM IN 349 B. C. 


Livy narrates that in 349 B.C. the coast of Latium between 
Antium and the Tiber was infested with Greek pirates, who, 
having landed on the shore, contended with the Gauls who had 
come down from the Alban Hills and were likewise devastating the 
Latin plain. Camillus, the son of the celebrated preserver of 
Rome, moved against the Gauls, and intrusted to the praetor the 
task of defending the coast against the pirates. Livy concludes 
his account as follows: 

Cum Graecis a Camillo nulla memorabilis gesta res: nec illi terra, nec 
Romanus mari bellator erat. postremo cum litoribus arcerentur, aqua etiam 
praeter cetera necessaria usui deficiente, Italiam reliquere. cuius populi ea 
cuiusque gentis classis fuerit nihil certi est. Maxime Siciliae fuisse tyrannos 
crediderim; nam ulterior Graecia ea tempestate intestino fessa bello iam 
Macedonum opes horrebat.? 

Niebuhr thinks the opinion of Livy that these marauders 
came from Sicily is without foundation, and suspects that they 
were a portion of the mercenaries who, when the Sacred War of 
346 B.c. was ended, abandoned Greece under the leadership of 
the Phocaean Phalaecus. It was not Phalaecus who came to 
Italy, says Niebuhr, but the Spartan king Archidamus with the 
remnant of his mercenaries; and possibly these were the marauders 
who, before they had found regular service, laid waste the coast of 
Latium. If they were on ships from any special place, this could 
only have been from Tarentum.’ 

The opinion of Niebuhr has recently been opposed by Holz- 
apfel, who maintains that we have here to do with a synchronism, 
and that the year 448 of Varro corresponds to 443-442—the year 
when Dionysius II abandoned Syracuse forever. According to 

1 Jive vil..26.'133, ci.25: 1, 12. 

2 Niebuhr, Rém. Geschichte, I, p. g9=ed. Isler, p. 75. 

345 


346 ANCIENT ITALY 


Holzapfel, the freebooters who came to Latium were the mercen- 
aries of the tyrant, who found themselves obliged after his downfall 
to seek their living in another manner. 

Although it is impossible to obtain a definite answer to the 
problem, I shall attempt in the following pages to show the 
falsity of the theory of Holzapfel, and to present several passages 
bearing on this question which, so far as I know, have not as yet 
been considered in this connection, and which in part tend to dis- 
prove, though in part also corroborating, the hypothesis advanced 
by Niebuhr. 

Let us commence with the theory of Holzapfel. It is expressly 
attested that, when the Corinthian Timoleon arrived at Syracuse, 
Dionysius II gave over to him not only the fortress and muni- 
tions of war, but even the two thousand mercenaries whom he 
had at his disposal.? Timoleon, as we shortly shall have occasion 
to repeat, arrived in Sicily with but a small force, and made use 
of all the soldiers and of all the means which he could find. The 
facility with which, as soon as he had arrived, he received those 
who came to him from Italy and Sicily,3 and also those for whom 
he had sent to Greece, the islands of the Aegean, and the coast 
of Asia Minor, together with the liberality he displayed in awarding 
Syracusan citizenship to all who desired it, proves that, instead 
of fleeing from Sicily, Greeks of no matter what condition had 
every reason for hastening thither. 

Modern writers hold that Livy hazarded on his own account 
the conjecture that the Greek marauders were sent by the Sicilian 
tyrants; but they are wrong in asserting this with such positive- 
ness. One may with equal reason suppose that Livy found this 
question already discussed in the Roman annals which served him 
as source. This being admitted, the fact that he says the pirates 
could not have come from Greece proper—ulterior Graecia is evi- 
dently in apposition to Magna Graecia—causes one to suspect that 


t Holzapfel, Rém. Chronologie, p. 124. 


2Plut. Timol. 13. 5: orparidrar 5¢ dioxtduor TP Acovvaly raphoay obs éxeivos, 
ws Tada TH Tiporéovre wapédwxer. 


3 Liv. x. 2. 


THE GREEK FLEET IN 349 B. C. 347 


some Roman writer had thought of the arrival in Latium of the 
mercenaries of the Phocaean war. Be that as it may, the reason for 
the uncertainty should be sought, ‘in all probability, in the silence 
of the Greeks regarding an insignificant band of pirates, and 
possibly also in the chronological disorder in which the Romans 
became involved when, on the basis of a false synchronism, they 
corrupted their chronology and were lost in the maze of varying 
and often apocryphal evidence which their annalists offered. 
Niebuhr thinks Livy mistaken in his supposition regarding 
the Sicilian tyrants, and holds that the Siceliots, who were dis- 
united and without ships, were in no position to attempt similar 
maritime undertakings. But even in the present case Niebuhr 
speaks too positively. Our information concerning the state of 
Sicily for the years preceding the arrival of Timoleon is very 
vague. Diodorus, with his customary negligence, says not a word 
concerning the history of his native land for the year 355 B. c. 
For the year 354 he says merely that when Dion was killed he was 
succeeded by Callippus for thirteen months;? for 353, that Cal- 
lippus sought shelter in Leontini, and that Hipparinus, the son of 
Dionysius, regained Syracuse and held it for two years;? for 351, 
that Leptines and Callippus seized Regium from Dionysius;3 
for 350-349 he is silent; and for 346 he records merely that the 
Syracusans were oppressed by many tyrants. From the life of 
Timoleon, however, as told by Plutarch and Diodorus, we learn 
that almost every city—such as Catana, Tauromenium, Centuripa, 
Leontini, Engyum, and Messana—had its own tyrant, and we are 
also certain that they relied on the power of Carthage. At about 
the same time the Italiots were oppressed by the Bruttians, who, 
profiting by the decay of the Italiot cities after the fall of the empire 
of Dionysius II, in the year following that of the revolution of 
Dion (356) assailed several of these cities.5 It is no wonder, then, 
t Diod. xvi. 31. 2 Diod. xvi. 36. 3 Diod. xvi. 45. 4 Diod. xvi. 68. 


5 Diod. xvi. 15. That the uprising of the Bruttians is closely connected with 
the revolution of Dion and the history of Syracuse not only appears from these 
chronological data, but is expressly stated by Strab. vi, p. 255 C. The alliance of 
Timoleon with Regium, the enemy of Syracuse, is explained by the fact that part 
of the inhabitants of Regium were descended from the Syracusan colonists placed 


348 ANCIENT ITALY 


that Livy, or his source, should have had the Sicilian tyrants in 
mind. For the same reasons which at that time led many Syra- 
cusans to seek refuge in the iSlands of the Aegean and on the 
coast of Asia,’ other Italiots and Siceliots, without going so far 
from their native land, evaded the pursuing Carthaginians who 
were protecting their tyrants, by withdrawing to the neighboring 
shores of central Italy, shores with which for centuries they had 
had commercial relations. Between 345 and 340 there came to 
Timoleon exiles from Italy as well as from Sicily, who asked and 
obtained a permanent home on the island. 

For chronological reasons which will shortly be considered, 
there seems to attach just as much probability to the theory oppos- 
ing that of Livy as to the one that he accepts. It is, however, most, 
natural that Livy, or his source, should have had Sicily in mind, 
since from the beginning of the fifth to the middle of the fourth 
century it influenced the coast of Latium to a remarkable extent, 
both politically and commercially, and since nearly all of the syn- 
chronisms which he and his sources register, refer to that island.? 

Let us now examine the opinion of Niehubr. For the sake of 
clearness, let us recall that, at the end of the Sacred War, Pha- 
laecus, the son of Phayllus and the nephew of Philomelus and Ono- 
marchus, the former leaders of the Phocaeans in that war, when he 
saw that he could not oppose Philip of Macedon, obtained per- 
mission to depart with his eight thousand mercenaries and proceed 
wherever he wished. He went first to the Peloponnese and, having 


there by Dionysius I. Likewise, the assistance which was given to Thurii by the 
Corinthians sent to Syracuse and Timoleon (see Plut. Timol. 16, 19) is explained by 
the fact that Syracuse had made herself arbiter of the affairs of Italy after the battle 
of the Helorus (389 B. c.) and the conquest of Regium (387) and Croton (379). 

t Plutarch (Timol. 23) uses the term m\e?orot of those who betook themselves 
to the islands of the Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor. Among them were those 
who followed Megillus, Pheristus, and Gorgo, the recent founders of Gela and 
Agrigentum. In the passage where we read (ibid. 35), Thy mév of mepl MéyedXov 
kal dépcrov é "Edéas rhv 5é of wept épyor éx Kéw, I would correct to é& "Hdelas 
and ék K®. It has hitherto escaped notice that MéyeAXos is not an unknown indi- 
vidual, but is the well-known Spartan MeyiAXos, one of the characters in the Népoe 
of Plato, who was also at Tarentum, and who together with Clinias is said to have 
founded a colony at Magnesia (Plat. Leg. i. 624; Cic. D. L. i. 15). 

2 See above, p. 296. 


THE GREEK FLEET IN 349 B. C. 349 


arrived at Corinth, embarked with his men for the shores of Italy 
and Sicily, hoping either to procure some rule for himself, or else 
to be employed in some undertaking. According to Diodorus, 
whom we have so far followed, he counted on the war which was 
then being waged between the Tarentines and Lucanians, but gave 
his soldiers to understand that he was invited by certain individuals 
in Italy and Sicily. They, however, perceived the vanity of his 
promises, and, not wishing to undertake so long a voyage without 
the assurance of certain recompense, compelled him to put the ships 
about and return toward the Peloponnese. While at Cape Malea 
on his way thither he received an invitation from the Cnossians, 
who were contending with the Lyttians, and, going to Crete, 
captured Lyttus. The Lyttians, as we know from other sources,' 
were Spartan colonists, and on that account demanded aid from 
the Spartans, who were just then preparing to go to the assistance 
of their colony, Tarentum. The Spartan king, Archidamus, 
therefore suspended his other preparations and, going to their 
aid, defeated Phalaecus, who remained thenceforth in Crete, and 
later perished in the siege of Cydonia. On the other hand, the 
mercenaries of Phalaecus returned to the Peloponnese, where 
most of them were killed by the Arcadians and Elaeans. Archi- 
damus proceeded to Italy and reached Tarentum the same year in 
which the Sacred War ended (346 B.c.). Seven years later, while 
fighting against the Lucanians, he perished at Manduria, on the 
same day and in the same hour, according to ancient writers, that 
Philip conquered the Athenians at Chaeronea (August 2, 338).? 

From this narration it by no means results, as Niebuhr asserts, 
that Archidamus arrived in Italy “with the remnants of the troops 
of Phalaecus,” and much less that these mercenaries were on 
board Tarentine ships, and laid waste the coast of Latium before 
being called to Tarentum. From Diodorus we learn instead that 
Archidamus went from Crete directly to Tarentum, whither indeed 
he had been bound before he went to the aid of the Lyttians. He 
and his men had a fixed goal, and had no need of wandering about. 

1E. g., Polyb. iv. 54. 6. 

2 Diod. xvi. 59 ff., 88; cf. Plut. Ag. 3; Theopomp. apud Plin. N. H. iii. 98. 


350 ANCIENT ITALY 


It is still less reasonable to suppose that Tarentine ships came to 
the coast of Latium. Tarentum had too much to look after at 
home, and in the war with the Lucanians, to trouble herself with 
uncertain and distant undertakings on the Mediterranean shores, 
where the Tarentine fleet had never appeared, even though its 
assistance in the fourth century would have been far from use- 
less. In addition we learn from Diodorus that of the eight thou- 
sand mercenaries whom Phalaecus took to the Peloponnese,’ a 
large number perished during the siege of Cydonia, which was 
attacked after the departure of Archidamus from Crete. Of those 
remaining many died later in the Peloponnese, and those who did 
not fall on the field of battle, to the number of four thousand, were 
there put to death.?, Nevertheless, we know that Archidamus had 
aided Phalaecus and the Phocaeans,3 and the source of Diodorus 
regarded as an instance of divine vengeance the fact that Archi- 
damus and his followers, who had borne aid to the Tarentines, 
were slaughtered by the Lucanians, since both he and his men had 
been guilty of sacrilege in despoiling the temple at Delphi.4 But 
even from these statements it does not appear that Archidamus had 
hired mercenaries from Phalaecus before going to Crete. The 
words of Diodorus may refer to the thousand Spartans who in the 
tenth and last year of the Phocaean war aided Phalaecus and the 
Phocaeans under the leadership of the same Archidamus.5 

However, in spite of the report that the mercenaries of Phalaecus 
compelled their leader to turn the ships back toward the Pelopon- 
nese, I believe it can be shown with certainty that some of those 
who had fought under Philomelus, Onomarchus, Phayllus, and 
Phalaecus really came to Italy. Theopompus, who, be it said in 
passing, was the primary source, whether direct or indirect, of 
Diodorus for the above-mentioned details, in relating the story of 
the hetaerae who were presented by the Phocaean leaders with the 
votive offerings stolen from the temple at Delphi, states that to the 
Thessalian dancer Pharsalia, Philomelus gave a wreath of gold, 

t Diod. xvi. 59. 

2 Diod. xvi. 63. 4 Diod. xvi: 63. 

3 Diod. xvi. 59. 5 Diod. xvi. 59. 


THE GREEK FLEET IN 349 B. C. 351 


a votive offering of the Lampsaceni. This proved to be displeasing 
to the gods, and when at a later period she happened to be in the 
agora of the Metapontini near the temple of Apollo, the priests 
were seized with a sacred frenzy and tore her to pieces.t The 
same event is narrated by Plutarch, whose account differs merely 
in unimportant particulars, saying that she was slaughtered by the 
youths of Metapontum, who vied with one another in tearing from 
her the golden wreath which had been an offering of the Cnidians.? 

That this was not an isolated case, and that other Phocaeans 
came to Italy at the same time, is made evident by the story of 
Timoleon. When, in the year in which the Phocaean war ended, 
Timoleon accepted the invitation of the Syracusans and decided to 
free that city from the tyrants (346 B.c.), for lack of anything 
better, and because his undertaking seemed desperate and no one 
wished to follow him, he enrolled as mercenaries some of the sol- 
diers who had taken part in the Phocaean war and plundered the 
temple at Delphi, and were then roaming through the Peloponnese. 
There is nothing strange in the conduct of Timoleon in this instance. 
His fellow-citizens had openly favored the Phocaeans,* and they 
had permitted Phalaecus to embark from their port when he was 
planning to go to Italy.» Moreover, political necessity left no 
room for scruples, and Timoleon frankly made use of these men. 
We know from Plutarch and Diodorus that he had them with him 
in the battle of the Crimisus,° and Plutarch even affirms that he 
made use of them in various undertakings, and that over four 
hundred of those whom he brought with him from Corinth were put 
to death after the victory of the Crimisus (340 B.c.).7 These 
two historians also agree that Timoleon drove certain of his fol- 
lowers from Syracuse after his victory over the Carthaginians, 
and that these proceeded to the coast of Bruttium, where they 
attempted to sack a maritime city, but were put to death by the 

t Theopomp. apud Athen. xiii, 605 c; cf. Diod. xvi. 64. 

2 Plut. De Pyth. orac. vi, p. 397 }. 

3 Plut. Timol. 30: micotvrwy 5¢ wdvtwv adbrovs cal pudarrouévwy émrapdxrous 


yeyovéras mravwuevor wept Thy Iledordvynoov brd Tipoddéovros édnpOnoav érépwv 
oTpaTiwT Gy ovbK evmopodrTos. 


4 Diod. xvi. 60. 2. 6 Plut. Timol. 25. 4; Diod. xvi. 68. 3. 
5 Diod. xvi. 61. 4. 7 Plut. Timol. 30. 


352 ANCIENT ITALY 


Bruttians.t Certainly Timoleon did not drive them out because 
he had scruples about men who had soiled themselves by taking 
part in the Sacred War. A good general cares for nothing vut 
courage and discipline in his soldiers. In reality he freed himself ‘ 
from these mercenaries because certain of them, in a mutiny which 
preceded the battle of the Crimisus, had jeopardized the success 
of his undertaking. Even after the victory Timoleon continued 
to make use of part of these Phocaean soldiers, and by the his- 
torians whose writings are preserved, and who have presented 
Timoleon in a false light, depicting him as a hypocrite, it is asserted 
that in this case also the gods wished to manifest their good-will 
toward him, and freed him from these men without his incurring 
the odium of putting them to death.’ 

It is clear, therefore, that certain soldiers and mercenaries from 
among those who had taken part in the Phocaean war came over 
to Italy and reached both Tarentum and Sicily, and it remains 
to discover whether these were the Greeks who in 349 laid waste 
the coast of the Volscian territory and of Latium. It is, of course, 
impossible to give a definite answer to this question. When Livy 
himself writes, ‘‘cuius populi ea cuiusque gentis classis fuerit nihil 
certi est,”” we who have no access to the primary sources, and who 
have at our disposal only the few statements preserved by com- 
pilers, must of necessity remain uncertain, and can at best only 
emphasize the probability of the case in question. Unfortunately, 
the year 349 of Livy does not correspond exactly to the annals of 
Diodorus. The year 350 of Livy corresponds to 347 of Diodorus,3 
and 348 to 344.4 But for 349 Livy’ and the Fast: Capitolini have 
as consuls L. Furius Camillus and Appius Claudius Regillensis, 
while Diodorus records for the corresponding 346 the consuls M. 
Aemilius and F. Quinctius.° However, for 345,7 a year which 
stands midway between the 349 and 348 of Livy, Diodorus records 
as consuls M. Fabius and Serv. Sulpicius, who are found in the 
Fasti Capitolini and in Livy for the year 345 also. In addition, 


t Diod. xvi. 82; Plut. Timol. 30. 1. 

2 Plut. Timol. 30. 4 ff. 5 Liv. vii. 24, 

3 Diod. xvi. 56. 6 Diod. xvi. 59. 
4 Liv. vii. 26; Diod. xvi. 69. 7 Diod. xvi. 66. 


THE GREEK FLEET IN 349 B. C. 353 


in this year 345, corresponding to the 345 of Diodorus, Livy’ has 
as dictator the L. Furius Camillus whom in 348 he makes contend 
as consul against the Greeks. This time, however, he does not fight 
against them, but only against the Auruncians. It is well known 
that there is a great deal of duplication in the annals of Livy and in 
Roman history in general, and that in regard to the Gallic wars, for 
example, the jasti of Diodorus are much less corrupt and more trust- 
worthy. If, in addition to this, we remember that in the account of 
Livy of the war waged by the consul L. Furius Camillus against the 
Gauls and Greeks,? it is expressly stated that he was not made dicta- 
tor after the death of his colleague in the consulship, Appius Claudius, 
it does not seem entirely fortuitous that Diodorus and Livy should 
in the main agree concerning a year which they both call 345 B.c. 

Let us leave this question for the present, since it is connected 
with numerous other problems pertaining to Roman chronology 
which cannot be solved here. It is sufficient for our purpose to 
note that in the year 345 of Diodorus, corresponding to the 349 of 
Varro and Livy, L. Furius Camillus contended against the Gauls. 
The best chronology for the Gallic wars is that of Polybius, who 
places the capture of Rome by the Gauls in 387 B.c. According 
to this author, the Gauls returned a second time thirty years later, 
and, when twelve more years had elapsed, for the third time 
attacked the Romans, who this time proceeded courageously 
against them and put them to flight. If we subtract 30 plus 12 
from 387, we come to the 345 of Diodorus (xiv. 80), who in 
regard to the chronology of the taking of Rome by the Gauls fol- 

t Liv. vii. 28. 

2 Thus for the year 359 B.C., Livy (vii. 26) recalls the prowess of Valerius 
Corvinus against the gigantic Gaul, although he himself (vii 9 ff.) had already 
narrated the same incident for the year 361 B. C., when the father of Manlius was 
dictator and C. Sulpicius and C. Licinius were consuls, attributing it to T. Man- 
lius. Moreover, Livy gives us to understand that, according to Claudius Quadri- 
garius, this remarkable contest was waged by T. Manlius at the time when M. 
Furius Camillus, the father of our L. Furius, was dictator, in 367 B.c. Livy holds 
that this occurred ‘“‘decem haud minus post annos.”’ We should therefore expect 
the mention of this event after 357, instead of which he speaks of it in 361. Ina 
word, a single deed is said to have been accomplished by two heroes and under two 


different dictators, and to fall in three separate years, according to three distinct 
redactions. And yet there are still some among us who call this history! 


3 Polyb. ii. 18. 5 ff. 


354 ANCIENT ITALY 


lows Polybius. Moreover, according to these two authors we 
must refer to 345 B. C. the victory over the Gauls won by L. Furius 
Camillus—a victory which is referred by Livy to 349, or the same 
year in which he says Camillus caused the Greeks to withdraw 
by sea. If this is admitted, then, since 345 is the year following the 
end of the Phocaean war, and is also that in which Timoleon 
arrived in Sicily, it is probable that the Greeks who in that year 
harassed the shores of Latium and of the Volscians were Phocaean 
mercenaries, like those who followed Phalaecus, Archidamus, and 
Timoleon, and sought fortune or safety in the West. 

Livy expressly declares that he does not know to what region 
the Greeks who tried to seize the coast of Latium belonged. 
This is important, because it shows that the statement was not 
derived from a Greek source. If some Greek historian had even 
indirectly recorded the information which we find in Livy, he 
would certainly have known who these robbers were. The igno- 
rance of Livy, on the other hand, is well explained when we con- 
sider that his data were derived from the early Roman annals. It 
was from the local annals, for instance, that he got his information 
concerning the arrival of Cleonymus on the shores of Patavium.* 
This ignorance of Greek affairs fits in well with the nature of the 
Roman annals, which had no horizon beyond that of the regions 
in which the Romans waged their wars, and which limited them- 
selves to a few inexact synchronisms when they had to deal with 
events occurring in Sicily and Campania. 

In the present instance, however, it is but natural that Greek 
historians should have neglected to give an account of the insig- 
nificant band which sought refuge on a barbarian coast—for such 
was Latium in the eyes of the Greeks—and Livy is not to be 
blamed for not knowing the country of marauders such as the 
Phocaean mercenaries, who were a heterogeneous lot from many 
cities. Moreover, if the above observations are correct, the state- 
ments of Livy in this connection are of the greatest value; for 
they made possible the discovery of an important synchronism in 
the history of Rome for the year 345 B. Cc. 


t Liv. x. 2. 


XXIII 
CONCERNING THE EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 


There is no doubt that Pisa was once an Etruscan city. In 
. addition to the testimony of Vergil, Strabo, and Pliny,’ this is 
made certain by passages from even more ancient authorities. 
Lycophron, who, as we know, depends upon Timaeus, tells of the 
arrival of Aeneas at Pisa and of the conquest of that city by the 
Etruscans.? The elder Cato declares that he does not know with 
certainty what people occupied Pisa before the Etruscans, but, 
probably on the authority of some ancient Greek writer, asserts 
that even before the Etruscan Tarchon ruled over Pisa, it was 
inhabited by a Greek-speaking people. Finally, Polybius,* in 
discussing the extent of the Ligurian territory, says that it extended 
inland as far as the territory of Arezzo, and along the coast as far 
as Pisa, which from the point of view of the frontier is called the 
city mpoTn ... . THs Tuppyvias. 

Notwithstanding these explicit statements, it has been main- 
tained that Pisa was a Ligurian rather than an Etruscan city; 
and quite recently a young Italian scholar, Dr. Uberto Pedroli, 
has elaborated certain observations made by E. Bormann,’ and 
brought out the following points: (1) that the collector of the 
mirabiles auscultationes places the mouths of the Arno and Auser 
where Pisa is situated, in the territory of the Ligurians;® (2) that 

t Verg. Aen. x. 179; Strab. v, p. 223 C.; Plin. N. H. iii. 50. 

2 Lycophr., vss. 1240 ff.; vss. 1335 ff.; cf. Geffcken, Timaios Geographie des 
Westens (Berlin, 1892), pp. 42 ff., 148. 

3 Cat. apud Serv. ad Aen. x. 179; cf. Plin., Joc. cit. The Teutanes graece 
loquentes mentioned by Cato (Joc. cit.) as the founders of Pisa were possibly the same 
as the Pelasgians who under the leadership of Teutamides (see Hellen. apud Dion. 


Hal. i. 28) arrived at the mouth of the Spinetic branch of the Po, and there also 
founded Cortona. 


4 Polyb. ii. 16. 2. 
5 E. Bormann, in CIL, XI, p. 273. 
6 Pseud.-Arist. De mir. ausc. 94 (92). 


355 


356 ANCIENT ITALY 


Claudianus places Pisa in Liguribus;* (3) that until the age of 
Sulla it would seem that Pisa remained outside the borders of 
Italy; (4) that, in distinction from the other Etruscan cities, Pisa 
was attributed to the tribe Galeria, together with the Ligurian 
Luna, Veleia, and Genua; (5) that it has not been demonstrated 
that the Etruscan remains found at Pisa really belong to that city. 
Pedroli concludes with the statement: ‘‘One easily sees that the 
opinion of those who maintain that Pisa was an Etruscan city rests 
on very slight foundation.’”? 

What is the value of these observations? It seems to me that 
the question has not been properly answered, and that in reality 
Pisa changed inhabitants at different periods, and from being a 
Ligurian city was twice included within the bounds of Etruria. 
It is more than probable that in early times the Ligurians occupied 
the coast of central Italy at least as far as Rome, in which case 
Pisa was originally situated in their territory,3 and we find an 
explanation for the mention of the Arnus as Avyyeus by Lycophron.4 
It is clear that the Etruscans, who had not only crossed the Apen- 
nines toward the north, but had pushed along the Tyrrhenian 
coast as far as Luna,’ also conquered Pisa. This is asserted by 
both Lycophron and Cato, although the evidence of Lycophron is of 
less value, as he was speaking of mythological times.° Just when 
the Etruscans succeeded in conquering Pisa it is impossible to 
state, but it is not true that no traces of such conquest have been 
found.? Certainly the city was Etruscan at the time of Timaceus, 


1 Claud. De bell. Gild., vs. 483. Pedroli might better have attached weight to 
the statement of Trogus Pompeius apud Lust. xx. 1, 2: ‘“‘Pisae in Liguribus Graecos 
habent et in Tuscis Tarquinii.” 

2 Pedroli, Roma e la Gallia Cisalpina. (Turin, 1893), pp. 6 ff. 

3 That the Ligurians pushed as far as Rome was already admitted by Roman 
writers; see e. g., Dion. Hal. i. 10, 40; Fest., s. v. Sacrani, p. 321 M.; cf. also 
Helbig, Die Italiker in der Poebene, pp. 30 ff. 

4 Lycophr., vs. 1240; cf. the comment of E. Ciaceri (Catania, tgor), ad loc. 

5 Liv. xli. 13: “et Lunam colonia eodem anno duo millia civium Romanorum 
sunt deducta .... de Liguribus captus ager erat; Etruscorum antea quam 
Ligurum fuerat.” 

6 Lycophr., vss. 1358 ff. 

71 defer in this to the authority of Professor Gh. Ghirardini (“Scoperte di 


EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 357 


the source of Lycophron, in the third century, and it is probable 
that it became so much earlier, at the time when the Etruscans 
were masters of the sea in the sixth and fifth centuries. It is also 
probable that the Etruscans who took from the Ligurians the 
territory of Pisa, found in that city a Greek commercial factory, 
probably of the Phocaeans, whom I would identify with the Teu- 
tanes or Pelasgians graece loquentes of the source of Cato. 

I do not intend to examine in detail all the passages relating 
to the earliest history of Pisa, but since at the present day the 
existence of a Greek colony at Pisa is generally doubted, I may be 
permitted to allude briefly to the reasons which lead me to believe 
that at the confluence of the Arno and Auser there was once a 
Phocaean factory. 

- In the comment attributed to Servius it is stated that according 
to certain authors there was at Pisa a Phocida oppidum,* and in 
another place there is a reference to the tradition that Populonia 
originally belonged to the Corsicans, or, as we should say, to the 
Phocaeans who founded Aleria? in Corsica, and also the Nicaea of 
that island, which recalls the Massilian Nicaea, wrongly called by 
Diodorus a colony of the Tyrrhenians.3 It is true that these state- 
ments are derived from a work which in itself is none too authori- 
tative, but they are fully justified when considered from a geo- 
graphical and political standpoint. It is clear that the Phocaeans, 
who about 600 founded Marseilles, about 562 occupied the coast 
of Corsica, and about 542 founded Velia to the south of Campania, 
must have had occasion to visit the coast of Etruria where Popu- 
lonia and Pisa were situated. Moreover, the existence of a Greek 
colony at Pisa is alluded to by Strabo,* who says that the Pisans 
antichita in Pisa,” Not. d. Scavi [May, 1892], p. 9), who also informs me of the 
discovery of an Etruscan tomb of the fifth century B. c. near the Lake of Bientina, 
between Pisa and Luca, in the region which originally belonged to the territory 
of Pisa. As we shall see shortly, Pisa gave to the Romans the territory on which 
the Latin colony of Luca arose. 

t Serv. ad Aen. x, vs. 179. 2 See Herodot. i. 165. 


3Serv., ibid., vs. 172; for Nicaea see Diod. v. 13. 4. In this passage, as is 
known, Diodorus also confuses Aleria with Calaris in Sardinia. 


4 Strab. v, p. 223 C. 


358 ANCIENT ITALY 


were formerly flourishing and made use of their forests in con- 
structing ships to guard against danger by sea, and then adds: 
“The Ligyens, more warlike than the Tyrrhenians, were for them 
bad neighbors, and even worse, enemies, attached to their flanks.” 
This population, which was at the same time hostile to the Tyr- 
rhenians and to the Ligurians, is evidently the Greek people 
which even Strabo mentions in connection with a tradition found 
in numerous other writers, including Vergil, to the effect that 
Pisa was a colony of the Pisaeans of Elis; a baseless tradition, 
which is due merely to the resemblance between the names of the 
two localities. ‘There seems, however, no reason for doubting the 
existence at Pisa of a Greek factory, which naturally favored the 
growth of a tradition such as that mentioned above; and in this 
the direct source of Strabo, whether it was Artemidorus or Apollo- 
dorus, finds a confirmation and an illustration in the passage from 
Cato, and also in the statements of the commentary of Servius and 
in the verses of Lycophron as derived from Timaeus. 

Strabo states explicitly that the Pisans contended against the © 
Tyrrhenians, by which statement we are referred to the time of 
the maritime war between the Tyrrhenians and the Phocaeans 
of Marseilles and of Aleria in Corsica. It was the Tyrrhenians 
of Agylla who drove the Greeks from Aleria in Corsica, where 
nevertheless we find a Nicaea at a later period, and it was probably 
these who drove the Phocaeans from their station at Pisa, either 
alone, or else united with the inhabitants of Volaterrae, who, 
according to Servius, seized Populonia from the Corsicans. 

In dealing with a series of facts to which we possess but scanty 
references—treferences which are either fragmentary, or often 
presented in a manner which obscures their real meaning—it is 
difficult to piece together our information and to convince students 
who approach the question from different standpoints, and who 
either follow their individual inspiration, or base their judgment 
upon the preconceived ideas of a critical school which, from a blind 
faith in the statements of ancient writers, has passed with excessive 
strictness to a skepticism that is often most unreasonable, espe- 
cially when we have to deal with statements which do not rest 


EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 359 


upon the direct authority of an ancient writer. These scholars 
to the contrary notwithstanding, however, it seems reasonable to 
suppose that the complex of references which we have just exam- 
ined are derived from Timaeus, and that the tradition of the third 
century which, according to all probability, is based on earlier 
sources, especially Massilian (such as Euthymenes of Massilia, for 
example’), does not err in connecting the existence of Pisa in 
historical times with the colonial expansion of the Phocaeans. 
Even in the fourth and third centuries the Phocaeans continually 
visited the coast of Etruria, as is shown by the story of the Roman 
tripod which was sent to Delphi on a Massilian ship after the cap- 
ture of Veii,? and by the fact that in the fourth century the Massi- 
lians sailed on commercial expeditions as far as Syracuse and 
Athens.3 Another circumstance which tends to prove this is 
that Phocaean coins have been found along the coast between 
Populonia and Volaterrae, and that a portion of the Etruscan coinage 
is in imitation of that of Marseilles. Moreover, a periplus of the 
fourth century’ states that Pisa was connected with a Greek city 
on the Adriatic coast, probably Spina, by a road which it required 
three days to traverse. This bears witness to the importance of 
Pisa at that time, and increases the probability that although she 
became Etruscan, she still received in her port the ships of the 
Greeks, who, as we learn from the history of Syracuse, in the fifth 
and fourth centuries had possession for a certain length of time 
of the coast of Corsica and Elba, and were accustomed to lay 
waste the coast of Etruria. 

To these historical considerations may be added others of a 
topographical character, since Strabo states that Populonia was 
the only Etruscan city situated on the sea.° This, however, 
applies also to Pisa, which in the earliest times was situated at the 
confluence of two rivers, and in a swampy region easily defended 
against the natives—a situation analogous to that of Venice. 


t See Berger, Geschichte d. wissensch. Erdkunde (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 107 ff. 

2 Diod. xiv. 9. 3. 3 Demosth. C. Zenoth. 4, p. 883. 

4 Gamurrini in Periodico di Numis., etc. (Florence, 1872), p. 208; Garrucci, 
Le monete dell’ Italia antica, p. 47, Plate 71, Fig. 4. 

5 Pseud.-Scyl. 17; cf. Studi storici, II, pp. 67, 78. 6 Strab. v, p. 223 C. 


360 ANCIENT ITALY 


We are not able to trace the history of Pisa in the third century, 
since the account of the wars of the Romans against the Etruscans 
after 298 B. c. unfortunately have been lost. We know that the 
Romans contended with the inhabitants of Volaterrae, whose terri- 
tory was and still is next to that of Pisa, until 225, in which year 
the consul C. Atilius landed at Pisa on his return from Sardinia.* 
From this latter fact, together with the concession which in 180 
the Pisans made of a portion of their territory to the Romans in 
order that the Latin colony of Luca might be founded,’ it has 
been rightly concluded that Pisa was joined to Rome by a foedus, . 
like Ravenna and possibly Genoa,? and also the Greek maritime 
cities of southern Italy. 

It seems to me possible, however, that at that time Pisa had 
again passed into the hands of the Ligurians. It is true that the 
passages in Pseudo-Aristotle and Justinus stating that Pisa was 
in the territory of the Ligurians, may be explained by the circum- 
stance that her territory adjoined that of this people, and still 
more easily by the fact that after the Second Punic War Pisa was 
for several decades the point where the Roman forces were con- 
centrated against the Ligurians,* and that we find in Livy such ex- 
pressions as “‘ (provincia) Pisae cum Liguribus”’ and “de provinciis 
deinde consultus senatus Pisas et Ligures provincias consulibus 
decrevit.”° I prefer, nevertheless, to believe that Pisa was again 
conquered by the Ligurians, and am led to take this view both by 
the passages already quoted, of which one, that of Pseudo-Aristotle, 
is derived from a writer of the third century, of whom we shall 
speak later on, and also by the following considerations: 

In the first place, Pisa is not recorded among the Etruscan 
peoples that in 205 aided P. Scipio Africanus, although in the 
list, in addition to the inhabitants of Perusia, Arretium, and Clu- 
sium, are mentioned those of Caere, Populonia, Tarquinii, Vola- 

t Polyb. ii. 17. 1. 2 Liv. xl. 43. 

3In spite of the opinion of Mommsen, I agree with E. Bormann (loc. cit., 


p- 272) and Pedroli (op. cit., pp. 7 ff.; p. 112) that this last passage refers to Luca 
and not to Luna. 


4 See the passages collected by Bormann, Joc. cit. 
S Liv. xxxviii. 35. 7. 6 Liv. xli. 14. 8. 


EARLY HISTORY OF PISA . 361 


terrae, and Rusellae, or all of the principal cities of the Tyr- 
rhenian coast. Had Pisa been Etruscan at that time, she would 
surely have been included; for she was an ally of Rome, and, with 
her rich forests; which, as we have seen, had already been ‘used for 
naval constructions, she was in a position to rival the generosity of 
the inhabitants of Perusia, Clusium, and Rusellae, who on that 
occasion furnished Scipio with “abietes in fabricandas naves.’’? 
In the second place, it must not be thought that in the second 
century all of the Ligurians were barbarians like the inhabitants 
of the ridge of the Apennines. The proximity of the Etruscans 
and Massilians was not without results. During the third century 
the Ligurians formed a political confederation somewhat similar 
to that of the Lycians, who were likewise robbers both by land and 
by sea.?- The Ligurians possessed a certain knowledge of military 
tactics, and in 177 succeeded in seizing the colony of Modena, 
which the Romans had founded six years before.3 In 193 Pisa 
was besieged by 40,000 of them, and, when about to fall into their 
hands, was saved by the appearance of the consul A. Minucius.4 
Moreover, when the Romans founded Luna in 177, that city, 
as we have seen, was taken from the Ligurians, who, in turn, had 
taken it from the Etruscans.5 It is especially important for our 
purpose to note that in the third century the Ligurians were greatly 
feared by sea. Plutarch® tells us that in 181 B.c. the Ligurian 
pirates had made themselves dreaded as far as the Strait of Gibral- 
tar. Also Livy says that in that year the Massilians “de Ligurum 
navibus querebantur.”’? In another passage Livy states that one 
of the duoviri navales was intrusted with the surveillance of the 
coast from the “Promontorium Minervae” in Campania as far 

1 Liv. xxviii. 45. 

2 Liv. xxxiv. 56: ‘“Ligurum viginti millia armatorum, coniuratione per omnia 
conciliabula universae gentis facta.” Also the statement of Strabo (iv, p. 203 C.) 
concerning a road twelve stades wide granted by the Ligurians to the Romans, 
bears witness to a deliberation taken by all of the peoples living near the coast. 

3 Liv. xli. 17. 

4 Liv. xxxv. 2. The scutum Ligustinum adopted by the Roman army, and 
which was believed to be of Greek origin (see Liv. xliv. 35. 19; cf. Strab. iv, p 203 C.) 


also bears witness to the excellence of their military arrangements. 
S Liv. xli. 13. 6 Plut. Paul. Aem. 6. 7 Mave xh 2636. 


362 ANCIENT ITALY 


as Marseilles, and that five years later, in 176 B.c., the Senate 
ordered both duoviri navales ‘cum classe Pisas ire qui Ligurum 
oram maritimum quoque terrorem admoventes circumvectaren- 
tur.”? Writers of a later period speak with admiration of the 
boldness of the Ligurians who on little barks braved the tempests, 
and for commercial reasons pushed as far as the Sardinian Sea 
and Africa. And since the Ligurians were strong both by sea 
and by land, and were able to take the city of Luna from the Etrus- 
cans, it is at least possible that they could have taken Pisa. It is 
only by admitting this that we can explain why Pisa was placed 
among the Ligurian cities by Pseudo-Aristotle, who drew upon the 
third-century writer Timaeus, and upon the one who summarized 
the works of Trogus Pompeius, a writer who made use of good 
Greek historical works, and was especially well informed concern- 
ing the history of Marseilles and the Ligurians.3 

In other words, it seems to me probable that the Ligurians were 
able to benefit by the decay of the maritime and land power of the 
Etruscans, which had received a crushing blow at the battle of 
Sentinum in 295 B.c.; and that, having attacked their nearest 
neighbors, they succeeded in capturing Luna and Pisa, and in 
driving the Etruscans from the upper Tyrrhenian coast. In the 
same manner, in the sixth and fifth centuries the Etruscans united 
with the Carthaginians against the Phocaeans, and forced them 
from Corsica and the Tyrrhenian shores, but were not able to 
drive them from Marseilles, which not only resisted the Etrusco- 
Carthaginian sea power, but also the Ligurians, who in the second 
century still gave them trouble. 

It is natural that in the second century Rome should have 
favored Marseilles at the expense of the Ligurians; but it is also 


t Liv. xli. 17. 7. In 193 the prefect M. Cincius (prefect of the land garrison 
or orae maritimae ?) informed the consuls that the Ligurians, after having devas- 
tated the territory of Luca and Pisa, ‘‘omnem oram maris peragrasse.” Possibly 
this has reference to piracy along the coast as well as to an invasion by land. 

2 Diod. v. 39. 8 (=Poseidonius). Strab. iv, p. 203 C., on the authority of 
Polybius and his successor Poseidonius, also speaks of the maritime power of the 
Ligurians. 

3 Iust. xliii. 3. 4 ff. 

4 Fast. triumph. for 125 B.c; Liv. Ep. lx; Flor. i. 37, Halm. 


EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 363 


natural that when, at the end of the fourth and during the third 
century, she was at war with the cities of northern Etruria, such as 
Aretium and Volaterrae, she should have encouraged the Ligurians 
in attacking these cities. This is no mere hypothesis. That 
the Romans were well disposed toward the Ligurians of Italy at 
this time is attested by the source of Plutarch (Polybius), who tells 
us? that in 181 Aemilius Paulus displayed much clemency in his 
victories over this people, because, instead of destroying the Ligu- 
rians, he wished to make use of them as a bulwark against the 
Gallic invasions with which Italy was continually threatened. 
Thus we see that this was a precept of the Roman policy, even 
though it was not generally practiced at that time. The fact is 
that the Ligurians and Gauls had many interests in common,? 
and about this time Rome had to proceed against the Ligurians 
with much energy. It is enough to recall that during the first 
decades of the second century Liguria was considered a consular 
province, and was intrusted to both consuls,3 and that in 180 B. c. 
47,000 Ligurian Apuani were transported, with their wives and 
children, into Samnium.* ‘The fact that, the year before, Aemilius 
Paulus had shown himself so lenient is explained by his hope of 
deriving the political profit mentioned by Plutarch by the applica- 
tion of an old and tried principle of Roman policy in his dealings 
with the Ligurians, among whom the Romans had numerous 
allies, such as the Anamari near Piacenza, possibly Genoa, and 
certainly the Statielli, who had caused the consul M. Popilius so 
much trouble.’ By admitting, finally, that at the end of the fourth 
or the beginning of the third century Pisa had again become 
Ligurian, we reach a full explanation of her alliance with Rome— 
an alliance which would be almost inexplicable should we hold 


1 Plut. Paul. Aem. 6. 

2 See, e. g., Liv. xxxiv. 48 (194 B.C.), 56; xxxv. 4. 6 (193 B.C.); xxxvi. 38 
(191 B.C.); xxxvii. 2 (190 B.C.); cf. xxxvi. 39. 6: “bella Ligurum Gallicis semper 
iuncta fuisse.”’ 

3 See, e. g., Liv. xxxviii. 42 (187 B.C.); xxxix. 1 (187 B.C.), 32 (185 B.C), 
45 (183 B.c.); xl. 1 (182 B.C.), 16 (182 B.C.), 36, 38, 41 (180 B. C.), 53 (179 B. C.); 
xii. 14 (176-8. c:); xlii.-2 (173 3B. C.); ‘to (172 8. C): 

4 Liv. xl. 38. 40. 5 Liv. xlii. 8 ff. 


364 ANCIENT ITALY 


that she had remained in the power of the Etruscans, since in that 
case it would be necessary to concede that she had betrayed the 
national cause, which is most improbable considering the com- 
pactness of the league of Etruscan cities against Rome. More- 
over, if Pisa had become Ligurian, we have an explanation of the 
fact that, together with Luna, Genoa, and Veleia, Pisa appears 
enrolled with the Ligurian cities in the Galerian tribe. 

It now remains to explain the statement of Polybius to the effect 
that, of the Etruscan cities, Pisa was the nearest to the Ligurian 
border. Polybius says that the territory of the Ligurians extended 
as far as Pisa and Arezzo, the two cities which together with Luna 
were of importance in the military operations against the Ligu- 
rians;™ and since in general this author gives data of a statistical 
nature, it is probable that by this he means to indicate the course 
of the Arno as marking the frontier of Italy and the confederate 
states on the side toward the Ligurian province, from the point 
where, according to Dante, this river ¢orce il muso at the Arretines, 
to its mouth near Pisa. This is rendered even more likely by the 
fact that the valley of the Arno offered a natural highway for the 
Roman armies during the Ligurian wars.’ 

It is true that the best authorities on Roman history, including 
Mommsen and Nissen, maintain that before the time of Sulla, 
in addition to the Aesis, the borders of Italy were marked, on the 
one hand, by a locality near S. Giovanni, in the valley of the Arno 
between Florence and Arezzo, and, on the other, by the little river 
Fine to the north of Cecina, between Pisa and Volaterrae; and that 
in 81 B. Cc. Sulla extended them as far as the Rubicon and Pisa. 
This theory, to which we gladly subscribe, does not oppose what 
we said above, since Pisa, as an allied city, must, it is true, have 
been situated outside of Italy proper, but, on the other hand, 
could not have been comprised within the provincia Ligures after 
the Ligurians had been entirely subjugated, although about 


tIn regard to Arezzo, see Liv. xxxi. 21; xxxiv. 56; xXXxv. 3. 


2 Liv. xxxv. 3: “Minucius consul Arretium .... venit.... inde qua- 
drato agmine ad Pisas duxit.” 


3 Mommsen, Rém. Gesch., 16, p. 428; Nissen, Ital. Landeskunde, p. 71. 


EARLY HISTORY OF PISA 365 


189 it had been considered a part of the Ligurian province.* 
This subjugation took place before the year 155, in which we find 
mention of a war against the Ligurian Eleati,? and some years 
before Polybius commenced to write his history. It is evident 
that even if, as I believe, the Ligurians succeeded in conquering Pisa, 
between 300 and 225 B. C., they were not able to entirely obliterate 
its character as an Etruscan city, and much less to exercise such 
influence upon its vast territory, especially on the side toward Vola- 
terrae. It is thus readily understood why the booty captured by 
the Ligurians on Pisan soil was termed Etruscan.* It was not 
even possible for the Ligurians to entirely remove the Etruscan 
imprint from the region between the Arno and the Magra, near 
which the Etruscans had once possessed Luna. It is therefore clear 
why many writers, as Strabo asserts,5 gave the Magra as the 
dividing line between Liguria and Etruria. This is the border 
which is mentioned in the descriptio Italiae of Augustus,° was 
accepted by Dante,’ and after nineteen centuries is still ethno- 
graphically correct. 

t Liv. xxxviii. 35. 7: “consulibus, alteri Pisae cum Liguribus, alteri Gallia 
provincia decreta est.” 

2 See Fast. Triumph., ed. Sch6n., for this year. Since 176 B.C. Pisa had been 
separated to a certain extent from Liguria. Liv. xli. 14. 8: “senatus Pisas et 


Ligures provincias consulibus decrevit; cui Pisae provincia obvenisset,” etc. Cf. 
Liv. xli. 15: ‘‘Pisae Cn. Cornelio. Ligures Petillio obvenerunt.” 


3 See Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Litteratur in ¢. Alexandrinerzeit, II, pp. 107 ff. 
4 Liv. xxxv. 21 (192 B.C.). 

5 Strab. v, p. 222 C. 

6 Plin. N. H. iii. 48 ff. 

7 Dante, Paradiso, ix, 89 ff. 


XXIV 


AN ERROR IN APPIAN CONCERNING THE BELLUM 
PERUSINUM 


In his account of the bellum Perusinum Appian states that the 
commencement of the burning of the famous and wealthy city 
which gave its name to this war was the work of a certain Cestius 
Macedonicus, and affirms that the entire city was destroyed with 
the exception of the temple of Hephaestus, or Vulcan (yopis Tod 
“H¢aiorefov). This, he says, was the end of one of the most 
important cities of the Etruscans, a people who “Hpav éceBor, 
and adds that after the fire those who 7a Aehpava ris odews 
&érAaxyov, tov “Hdaiotov odicw eevto Oedv eivat matpiov avti 
Tis “Hpas.* 

In these words we have a striking proof of the haste with which 
Appian, even though he was accustomed to draw from trust- 
worthy sources, reproduced and summarized the works which he 
read. Dio Cassius is certainly much more accurate when, in nar- 
rating briefly the burning of Perugia, he expresses himself as 
follows: Kal 1 mods avdtn, TAnY TOD ‘Hdaoteiov Tod Te THs “Hpas 
éous maca KatexavOn- Todto dé (éoWOn yap Tes KaTa TUYNV) 
avnyOn te éo tHhv ‘Pounv é& dwrews dvelpov nv 6 Kaicap elde.? 
Following this, Dio Cassius alludes to the colonies sent by Augus- 
tus to Perugia, to whom also the above-quoted words of Appian 
refer: Oc00 Ta rethpava THS morews EiddXayov. The cults of 
Vulcan and of Hera were contemporary at Perugia, according to 
Dio, and the statement of Appian to the effect that those who 
inhabited Perugia after its burning substituted Vulcan for Hera 
as guardian of the city is evidently due to a misunderstanding 
of the reference to the carrying to Rome of the statue of Hera. 
This image suffered the same fate as, according to tradition, did 
that of Juno Regina after the taking of Veii. 


t App. B. C. v. 49. 2 Dio Cass. xlviii. 14. §. 
367 


368 ANCIENT ITALY 


In what manner, however, was the cult of Hephaestus, or 
rather of Vulcan, associated with that of Hera or Juno? Ina 
well-known passage of the interpolator of Servius’ we read: 
“‘prudentes Etruscae disciplinae aiunt apud conditores Etruscarum 
urbium non putatas iustas urbes, in quibus non tres portae essent 
dedicatae et tot viae et tot templa Iovis, Iunonis, Minervae.” Ido 
not intend to undertake here the by no means easy investigation 
of the value of this statement, and much less do I intend to deter- 
mine how and when it came about that this triad of divinities 
which are associated together, penetrated to certain cities of central 
Italy, such as Rome and Falerii. I limit myself merely to record- 
ing that there are said to have existed traces of the cult of Minerva 
at Perugia also in pre-Roman times.? 

The chief object of this discussion, however, is to call attention 
to the fact that, in place of the cult of Hephaestus or Vulcan as 
divinity paredros of Juno, we should expect to find that of Jupiter 
at Perugia just as we do at Rome and Falerii. This difficulty is not 
so great as it seems at first glance. I have elsewhere treated of a 
group of facts and arguments? which seem to me to prove that up 
to the age of Pyrrhus the most ancient Jupiter of Rome was honored 
under the name of Vulcanus-Summanus, and that for this reason 
the region at the foot of the Capitoline Hill and adjoining the Comi- 
tium continued till a late period to be called the area Volcani. 
The name of Hephaestus, as preserved by Appian and Dio Cassius, 
would seem to confirm this statement, and is of assistance, as it 
seems (differently from that which occurred in the case of the 
Umbrian Iguvium, for example), in proving that the primordial 
divinity of the state retained the ancient name of Vulcan. 

t Serv. ad Aen. i. 422. 


2 I do not hesitate to attribute to Peiresa or Perugia the coins edited by Gar- 
rucci (Le monete dell’ Italia antica, Plate LX XVI, Fig. 15, p. 59), on which one sees 
the head of Athena. Garrucci, with other numismatists, attributes them to an 
unknown city called Peithesa on account of a letter which he writes as an O 
and interprets as a 9. If I am not mistaken, it is reallya P; cf. the coins of 
Tuder, op. cit., Plate LXXV, Figs. 16 ff. The existence of a form Peiresa beside 
the more common Perusia may also be derived from Steph. Byz., s. v. Ieppatovov 

. TO €Ovixdy Ilepparonvés. 


3 See my Storia di Roma, I, 2, pp. 175 ff. and passim. 


viondag ‘IddvLlIj AHL sO ALV*+) 








X ALV Id 


a. 


7 — 7s 
ae 
oe ita 
me 

* 


Se 
>. All Ge a» 
ae =f 


ra) fim ss 

7 fa = 7 
Se ot ee ty - 

ney 7 ia ca - le ae 


aa 
oe 
<4 


<. 





CONCERNING THE BELLUM PERUSINUM 369 


The correspondence between the earlier Vulcan and the more 
recent Jupiter naturally reminds us of the gloss on Hesychius where 
we read Ted yadvos 6 Zevs mapa Kpnoiy, and of the coins of Cretan 
Phaestus which allude to this god. Instead of venturing on 
uncertain ground, however, I prefer to remain in the field of local 
history, and discover, if possible, in what part of Perugia the temple 
of Hephaestus and Hera was located. According to the passages 
from Appian and Dio Cassius, the temple of these divinities was 
the only one which was saved from the flames. According to the 
statement of Dio Cassius, it was saved merely by chance (éo@0y 
yap mws kata TUxnv); but, with due respect for his authority, it 
seems to me that the non-destruction of the temple was not so 
much accidental as because of the nature of its situation. Even 
those who have paid but a single visit to Perugia have no difficulty 
in recognizing that the temple of Vulcan and Juno must have been 
located in the highest portion of the city, or on the top of the hill 
which constituted the arx, and which was separated from the 
rest of the city by an inclosing wall. It is a noteworthy fact that 
at this point is situated the porta Sole which has been recorded by 
Dante,? and that in the immediate neighborhood of this region 
rises today the church of S. Lorenzo, the largest Christian temple 
of Perugia. ‘To judge from what has been the case in many other 
Etruscan cities, as for example Grosseto, which succeeded Rusel- 
lae, and at Orvieto or Urbs vetus, both in mythology and in Chris- 
tian worship S. Lorenzo seems to have been substituted for the 
ancient Vulcan. The same phenomenon seems to have occurred 
at Spoleto, where, according to the observations of local investi- 
gators, S. Elia appears to have been substituted for the ancient cult 
of the Sun. If this were definitely established, it would be less 
difficult to understand why the tenth of August, the day conse- 
crated to S. Lorenzo, should be held in southern Tuscany to be 
the hottest of the year, and why the twenty-third of the same month 
was sacred to Vulcan. 

t Head, Hist. num., p. 401. 

2 Dante, Paradiso, xi, 47. 


XXV 


TWO GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN SARDINIA 
I 


Kaibel,? publishes an inscription found at Cagliari, as follows: 
HPAIES - AIONYSO - ANEOHK || 


and, after stating that it was preserved by Augustine, cod. Matrit. 
Q. 87. f. 60’, and that he had learned of it through Mommsen, he 
adds: “Videtur legendum K]pa[rn]s Acovic[@] avéOnxfev. Her- 
mam Libero dono datam Caralibus inventam habes CIL, X, 7556.” 

From the Bullettino archeologico Sardo of Spano, Kaibel might 
have seen that the inscription is still preserved in the National 
Museum of Cagliari. From a squeeze of my own taking I read: 


HPAEEI= AIONYSQI ANE | OHK // 


¢ ~ ed t 4 
Hpaeeis Atoviow aveOnx[av 


It is hardly necessary to note that Augustine saw the inscription 
when it was less mutilated. The letters @HK are not visible today. 

It is important to determine whether this inscription is of Sar- 
dinian origin. Monsignor Cavedoni thought that the Heraeans 
mentioned were those of Arcadia.?, He was opposed by P. Mar- 
tini, of Cagliari, who, on account of the reference of Ptolemy? to a 
place called “Hpavov in the northern part of the island, attributed 
the monument to the inhabitants of that obscure village. 

This last opinion was unfortunately accepted by me in my 
article on the traces of Greek inhabitants in Sardinia. I am now 
convinced that the inscription is not Sardinian, but belongs to 

t Kaibel, Inscr. Gr., Sic. et It., no. 605. 

2 Cavedoni, Bull. Arch. Sard., VI (1860), p. 77; VII (1861), pp. 163 ff.; 
Martini, ibid., pp. 171 ff. 

3 Ptol. iii. 3. 7. 

4“La Sardegna prima del dom. rom.” Atti det Lincei (Rome), p. 57, n. 2. 
This has recently been sustained by Wilamowitz-MGllendorff (Hermes, Lesejrichte, 
XXXIII, p. 524), who did not have at hand the present article. 


371 


372 ' ANCIENT ITALY 


Greece proper. In the first place, the marble on which it is cut 
is certainly not of Sardinian origin, and I am assured that it is 
Greek, and probably Parian. Moreover, the character of the 
cutting, and the relief which is sculptured below it, lead to the 
same results. In the center of a well-executed bas-relief is seen 
an actor in female attire, and holding a mask in his hand. Before 
him, to the right of the beholder, where the inscription becomes 
mutilated, there are traces of another figure. To the left there is a 
nude male figure, holding in his hands two objects which the con- 
dition of the monument makes it impossible to recognize.* Above 
his head are three theatrical masks for male réles. In front, to 
the left, a large two-handled amphora stands on the ground. 
Other objects of this nature are known. Thus the bas-relief 
of Philiscus? offers a close analogy to the one under discussion. 
That our relief, however, is earlier and belongs to a good Greek 
period is shown by the cutting of the letters and the style of the 
carving. The letters are well formed and elegant, worthy of the 
period following the archonship of Euclides (403 B.c.). The 
style of the sculpture is Attic and easily of the fourth century B. C., 
as I am assured by the authoritative judgment of my colleague, 
Gh. Ghirardini. : 
Leaving aside the question of the age of the monument, we 
may be certain that it did not originally belong to Sardinia. It is 
true that Ptolemy speaks of a “Hpavoy on the island, and this 
town was probably of Greek origin and situated near Olbia,3 which 
too, according to all probability, was a Greek city.4 But even if 
we admit that at certain points on the shores of Sardinia, such as 
Olbia and Neapolis, there were established sporadic Greek colonies, 
t In the right-hand corner there was probably an oenochoe, and in the left a 
patara, with a possible allusion to a sacred libation. From the absence of Silenic 
characteristics in the masks we may suppose the monument to represent a tragic 


rather than a comic subject. Its poor state of preservation, however, prevents 
further considerations of this nature. 


2 Schreiber, Kulturhist. Atl., I, Plate 5, Fig. 4. 
3See La Marmora, Voyage, II, p. 403; C. Miiller ad Ptol., Joc. cit., p. 384. 
A small island near Sardinia had the name of Heras lutra; cf. Plin. N. H. iii. 85. 


4 Cf. my pamphlet entitled Storia di Olbia (Sassari, 1895). 


PLATE XI 





RELIEF AND INSCRIPTION FROM SARDINIA 


[ae 
‘ eo" 
5 
re a 

cou 


4-2 = ay hes 
it, 
ad _ eae 
Saree 


Als 
a 


ae 


re 

ae 
i 

a 


eS 


a 


ae 





TWO GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN SARDINIA 373 


it would be strange to think that there was a Greek theater at 
Cagliari, and that the inhabitants of distant Heraeum should have 
honored with gifts the Dionysus there worshiped. Such a sup- 
position could only appear probable in case Sardinia had been 
conquered by Greek rather than by Punic civilization. Even if 
we should hold that the monument dates from Roman times 
(which I believe impossible), no one could believe that a small 
village lost among the mountains would have preserved such 
important traces of Greek life, when Olbia itself so soon became 
thoroughly Roman. 

It is useless, however, to dwell longer upon such hypotheses. 
The contents and form of the inscripiton, the sculptured relief, 
and the nature of the stone show the monument to be from Greece, 
and possibly from Athens itself, where the cult of Dionysus was 
of such great importance. 

Having excluded the Heraeans of Sardinia, it remains to dis- 
cover who were the ‘Hpades or “Hpaeis who dedicated the monu- 
ment. Cavedoni thought they were the Heraeans of Arcadia, where 
there existed a temple of Dionysus the Citizen and Dionysus the 
Increaser.?. Others have connected them with the ‘Hpaeis who 
formed one of the five «@uaz and pépn of the territory of Megara,? 
and where also the cult of Dionysus was popular. It is more 
probable, however, that, as Maass recognized, instead of giving 
the name of a city, the monument refers to an association of drama- 
tic actors who took the name of their founder Heraeus. As was 
the case with many other objects, it was transported to the shores 
of Sardinia from some maritime city of Greece, probably at a late 
period, although earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth 
century.5 


t Paus. viii. 26. 1. 2 Plut. Quaest. Gr. 17. 3 Paus. i. 40. 6. 


4 Cf. Poland, De collegiis artific. ap. Gr. (Dresden, 1895; dissertation of Wet- 
tinger Gymnasium); Maass, Jahrb. d. K. deutsch. arch. Inst., XI (1896), p. 102 ff. 


5 On the back of the monument is the sepulchral inscription of the Sardinian 
Francesco Arca Dessi, who died in 1603. It was found in 1849 in the church of the 
cemetery of Bonaria near the shore; see Spano, Joc. cit., p. 129. Another case of 
an inscription transported to Cagliari is offered, I believe, by no. 140 of the 
Corpus Inscr. Semiticarum, in which is mentioned Venus Erycina. I have found 


374 ANCIENT ITALY 


II 


Of Sardinian origin, on the other hand, is probably a noteworthy 
fragment of a Greek inscription found at Oristano and described 
by Tamponi,* as follows: ‘square tile of tufo on which are deeply 
incised the rough letters ZAMA.” This pretended tile is in reality 
a bit of sandstone (banchina), similar to that on which are cut the 
Greek inscriptions of Sicily, and also the Phoenician remains of 
the Punic city of Tharros, near the finding-place of the present 
example. 

The few letters of the inscription have not attracted the attention 
even of those who have published it, but are of great importance 
for the study of the inscriptions of Sardinia. The fragment is 
now in the possession of Sig. P. Tamponi, of Terranova. My 
reading of it is as follows: 





2 AMA 











favac .. 


The letters are archaic character and deeply cut. They read 
from right to left. At the beginning there are clear traces of the 
digamma, which show also on a cast of the inscription. Between 
the second A and the 2 the space is greater than between the 
other letters. Considering the irregular character of many of 
these archaic inscriptions, it does not follow that the = formed 
part of another word, especially as the initial f seems to oppose 
such an opinion. There is not sufficient space between the 2 
and the fracture to enable us to determine whether it was followed 
by another letter on the same line, or whether the next letters came 
below. 

The inscription is clearly from the sixth, or at the latest from the 
material similar to that on which this is cut at Eryx itself, and the monument 
probably comes from there or from the neighboring Trapani. On the other hand, 
the Greek inscription found at Cagliari and published by Kaibel (no. 606; “Immap- 
xos [‘H]ynovsrpdrov) is, from the nature of the marble, really Sardinian. It, 


and no. 609 as well, are in the museum of Cagliari. In the latter Kaibel fails to 
note that the a is always cut thus: A. 


tN. S., 1891, p. 363. 


TWO GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN SARDINIA 375 


very beginning of the fifth, century B.c. Were it from a Greek 
city, it would evoke some discussion as to the the presence of the san 
and digamma, but would attract no great attention.t Coming as 
it does from Sardinia, on account of the lack of other documents 
from the same period, it offers no occasion for similar discussion, 
but furnishes material of another nature for possibly even more 
important consideration. 

It might be thought that the fragment was brought to Sardinia 
from some other country, such as Sicily. Sailors often take as 
ballast the stones which they find on the shore, and for this reason 
the same inscription is often reported from several and widely 
separated lands.?_ Moreover, the fragment was found at Oristano 
(Othoca), which is not far from the sea, and in antiquity was even 
nearer to the gulf of the same name. It should be noted, however, 
that the material of the fragment is the same as that of the inscrip- 
tions from the neighboring Tharros, which makes its Sardinian 
origin at least very probable. 

The difficulty lies in explaining the presence of an inscription of 
the sixth century, or possibly even of earlier date, on an island and 
in a region which at that period commenced to recognize the Punic 
hegemony. It is true that in the Punic necropolis of Tharros there 
were found two Greek sepulchral inscriptions of two Massilians,3 
one of which, incised on a stele of the same sandstone, is preserved 
in the museum of Cagliari, and seems fairly ancient. It is, how- 
ever, written from left to right, and belongs to a much later period 
than our fragment. It.may be noted here that opposite Tharros, 
about seventeen miles from Oristano, the city of Neapolis was 
located, the name of which probably alludes to the presence of 
a Greek emporium. The Massilians, although enemies of the 
Carthaginians, like all commercial peoples, must have had relations 
with them, and on their way to Carthage could not have helped 


t In regard to the characters it may merely be noted that the 2 is the same as 
that on a bronze cymbal from Misitha near Messene; see Rohl, J. G. A., no. 50. 

2 Cf., for example, CIL, X. no. 3702, seen by Beloch at Cumae, by Acton and 
Agosta in Sicily, and by me at Venice. The inscription really seems to be Dal- 
matian. 


3 Kaibel (J. G. S. I.), nos. 609, 610. 


376 ANCIENT ITALY 


visiting the eastern coast of the island. If we find them at Tharros, 
we expect all the more to find them at Neapolis, which was prob- 
ably a Greek emporium under Punic supervision, as was Nau- 
cratis in Egypt, or, to take an even more striking example, as was 
Neapolis in the Zeugitana, at the very gates of Carthage, and 
where, as it seems, the Siceliots had the right to disembark.? 

The probability of this theory is shown by the fact that the 
inhabitants of Sardinia sent to Delphi a bronze statue of their 
eponymous hero Sardus.?, The temple of Sardus Pater stood on a 
promontory near Neapolis,? and it seems probable that the sending 
of a similar gift to a Greek temple must have some connection 
with the presence of this city with a Greek name, even though 
Pausanias (probably on the authority of Polemon) says that it was 
a gift BapBapwv dé Tav pos TH écrrépa ot ExovTes Lapdo. 

Even the above does not explain the presence at Oristano of our 
fragment, which dates back to an earlier period. At the most, it 
may be noted that in the necropolis of Tharros, where Greek vases 
of the fifth century and later have come to light, some were dis- 
covered which are attributed to the sixth century.* If the inscrip- 
tion is not earlier, it may at least be from the period when the 
Punic domination in Sardinia began (about the middle of the sixth 
century), and was, at any rate, incised when the Carthaginians 
made their pertinacious and successful struggle against Greek ex- 
pansion in the west. In this connection it is hardly necessary to 
recall that the Carthaginians always showed themselves jealous 
of the possession of Sardinia.s 

1 This may be derived from the statement of Thuc. vii. 50. The presence of 
a Neapolis near a city termed Othoca (J#. ant.), or Uttea (Tab. Peut.) or ’O0ala 
(Ptol.) causes one to suspect that Neapolis is the Greek version of the Punic name 
of Carthage, opposed in Sardinia as in the Zeugitana to the ancient city or Utica. 
Cf. the Latin inscription from Uselis, which is very near Othoca (CIL, X, no. 7846: 
ijulius lu... . nus utice[nsi]s). In regard to the Zeugitana, see Meltzer, Gesch. 
der Karthager, I, pp. 91 ff. Even admitting this, however, the Greek name still 
shows Greek influence. 

2 Paus. x. 17. I. 3 Ptol. iii. 3. 2. 

4 Now in the museums of Sassari and Cagliari. 

5 Cf., for example, the well-known treaties between Rome and Carthage of 
various periods. 


TWO GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN SARDINIA 377 


The various legends regarding the arrival of Iolaus, the Thes- 
pians, and Aristaeus' would seem to presuppose the arrival of 
Greek ships and colonists in Sardinia at an early period. These 
legends, however, instead of mirroring authentic research in mat- 
ters pertaining to such early immigration, were brought into being 
by the maritime hegemony of Syracuse, which at the time of 
Dionysius I exercised much influence over the coasts of Corsica 
and Sardinia. Nevertheless, we cannot be positive that at the end 
of the seventh century, or during the sixth and the beginning of 
the fifth, some attempts were not made by the Greeks to establish 
themselves in Sardinia. The Samians and Phocaeans who at 
the end of the seventh century (630) pressed as far as Tartessus, and 
in the following century founded Massilia, and who about 562 B. c. 
established themselves, if only for a short period, in Corsica, must 
also have come in contact with the coast of Sardinia. A knowl- 
edge of this island on the part of the Greeks is also presupposed 
by the advice which about 546 B.c. Bias gave to the Ionians to 
found there a pan-Ionic colony—advice which in 499 B.C. was 
repeated by Aristagoras of Miletus,” likewise to the Ionians. But 
if Bias thought that the Ionians who were to establish themselves 
there would become prosperous and powerful, and if Istieus, the 
cousin of Aristagoras, believed that it was possible to conquer this 
island and render it subject to Persia, it is evident that during the 
sixth century the Carthaginian domination in Sardinia (this is also 
confirmed by the story* of the defeat of Malcus or Mazeus) was 
by no means firmly established, and that it was thought possible 
to gain even that island for Greek colonization.5 

If, however, as everything leads us to believe, our epigraphic 
fragment belongs to Sardinia, it is not to be considered as an 

1 [Arist.] De mir. ausc. 100; Diod. iv. 29; v. 15; Strab. iii, p. 225 C.; Paus. 
Vil. 2:-23 1x123. 13 x. 173, [Apollod.] 1. :7.6;,2: 

2 Herodot. i. 170; v. 124. 3 Ibid. v. 106; cf. vi. 2. 4 Iust. xvii. 7. 2 ff. 


5 I attach no importance to the statement that Manticlus, after the taking of 
Ira, proposed that the Messenians go to Sardinia (Paus. iv. 23. 5), since, granting 
the worthlessness of the tradition regarding the details of the wars of Messene 
(see Niese, Hermes, XXVI [1891], pp. 1 ff.), it may also be that this advice of 
Manticlus is merely a proleptic duplication of that of Bias. 


378 ANCIENT ITALY 


isolated example of the presence of Greeks on the island, but is 
connected with other literary data, which unfortunately are also 
fragmentary. 

We know very little of the history of Greek colonization in the 
West, and very little also of the deeds of the Phocaeans of Mas- 
silia in their wars against Carthage. It is only by chance, and as a 
mere episode, that Herodotus informs us of the war of the Pho- 
caeans of Aleria and the Carthaginians with their Etruscan allies. 
Such is the dearth of literary tradition that further information of 
this nature is wanting. 

In regard to the monuments the case is different. Although 
Sardinia possesses very little authentic history, she has as recom- 
pense archaeological material which is both abundant and homo- 
geneous. This serves to control and to complete the data of the 
ancient authors, and, much more than do similar monuments for 
other regions of more mixed population, serves to give a clear 
idea of the degree of culture attained by the inhabitants. To 
cite a single example, Sardinia was one of the regions from which 
the Phoenicians and later, the Carthaginians, derived their supply 
of tin. This fact was demonstrated by archaeological finds some 
years ago," but, strangely enough, has as yet attracted very little 
attention among students. It is not improbable that at some future 
day, at some place on the coast of this practically deserted island, 
will be found other archaic Greek inscriptions in addition to 
the four letters from Oristano which have seemed worthy of this 
brief comment. 


tSee the observations of F. Nissardi in the Bull. Arch. Sardo. (Cagliari, 
1884), Appendix, pp. 20 ff. 


XXVI 


THE TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH STRABO COMPOSED 
HIS HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 


The problem as to when and where Strabo composed his His- 
torical Geography seems at first sight important merely from a 
philological point of view, but it is in reality as much, or even 
more, deserving of solution from a historical standpoint. Strabo 
is an important source for the political and administrative history 
of his time. 

To know where he wrote is equivalent to establishing the num- 
ber and character of his sources of information. To know when 
he wrote is especially valuable for determining the date of many 
events for which he is often the only source, and of which he did 
not fix the chronology for the evident reason that he was not writing 
a history, but a work which was a commentary on, and an appendix 
to, his history, which has not come down to us.' This investiga- 
tion is all the more important because not only the few references 
in ancient writers to the time in which he lived, but also the opinions 
of modern students concerning the time and place in which he 
composed his works, are, in my judgment, generally erroneous. 
Hesychius of Miletus says that Strabo lived at the time of Emperor 
Tiberius,? and even the best modern writers, such as Mommsen 
and Nissen, thinks that his Geography was written at that period. 

t That the work of Strabo, rather than being a geography in the proper sense 
of the word, is a historical geography, and a commentary and appendix to the 
historical works which he had previously written, was first recognized by Niese 
(Hermes, XIII, p. 45). Cf. Miller, Die Alexandergeschichte nach Strabo (Wiirz- 
burg, 1882); Luedke, Leipziger Studien, XI, pp. 14 ff.; cf. also Otto (ibid , supple- 
mentary vol ), who especially from the geography has diligently collected the frag- 


ments, or better the passages, which refer back to the ioropixa brouvipara. See 
my observations in the Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, pp. 145, 212. 

2 Cf. Suid. and Eudocia, s. v. Z7pdBwr. 

3See Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, 2d ed., p. 119; Nissen, tal. Landes- 
kunde, I, p. 15; Schaefer, Abriss. d. griech. u. rom. Quellenkunde, 2. Abth., 2. 


379 


> 


380 ANCIENT ITALY 


This opinion has been even better formulated and worked out, 
certainly with much cleverness and learning, by Professor Niese, 
whose statements have been very favorably received by scholars 
generally.t According to Niese, Strabo wrote his Geography at 
Rome at the instigation of Roman friends who were conspicuous 
in political affairs. With one of these, Aelius Gallus, he went 
from Rome to Egypt, and with him returned to Rome, where 
between 18 and 19 A. D. his Geography was written. 

In an earlier article, in which especial attention was paid to the 
value of the numerous passages in Strabo referring to admin- 
istrative affairs, I also have treated these questions, and have sought 
to show the error in some of Niese’s conclusions.? According to 
my results, Strabo composed his works, not at the instigation of 
politicians at Rome, but from the point of view of a Greek from 
Asia Minor, and in the interest of the Grecks of that region. His 
Geography, written much earlier than the time of Tiberius, was 
merely retouched at a later period. A re-examination of the 
writings of Strabo confirms me in most of these conclusions, and 
offers a series of fresh arguments, thanks to which I hope to deter- 
mine with greater precision the above-mentioned problems. 


I. THE TIME WHEN STRABO WROTE HIS HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 


The question as to whether the Geography of Strabo is a product 
of the age of Tiberius and written between 18 and 19 A. D. should 


Aufl., p. 96. As differing more or less from the common opinion may be men- 
tioned Forbiger (Handbuch d. alt. Geographie, I, pp. 306 ff.), who does not see 
the work of an old man in the fresh and vivid style of Strabo; Meineke (Vindi- 
ciae Strabonianae, p. vi), who believes that his works were written at different 
periods and never completed; P. Meyer (Quaestiones Strabonianae (Leipzig, 1879], 
pp. 58 ff.), who thinks the first seven books were written between 6 and 5 B. c. and 
2 A. D., and books viii-xvii between 2 and 18 A. D.; Bunbury (Hist. of Anc. Geogr., 
II, p. 213), who holds that the geography in its present form dates from 18—19 A. D., 
but that we do not know when it was commenced nor finished. These scholars, 
however, merely state opinions without proofs. Even Meyer failed to arrive at 
the correct conclusion from the two or three good observations which we shall 
examine in their proper place. 

t Niese, Hermes, XIII, pp. 33 ff.; cf. Christ, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur, 
par. 420; Butzer, Ueber Strabos Geographica (Frankfurt a. M. 1887), p. 30; P. 
Otto, in his article on the drouv}uara of Strabo in Leipziger Studien, XI, p. 11. 

2 See Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, pp. 97 ff. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 381 


be answered with a decided “No.” In something over twenty 
places Strabo names the emperor Tiberius and records events 
which took place during his reign, but the greater portion of the 
other events which he describes, and of which he was the contem- 
porary, are connected with the civil wars occurring after the death 
of Caesar, and with the period of the life of Augustus embraced 
between the years 31 (battle of Actium) and 7 B.c. Of the events 
which took place in the final years of the reign of Augustus, 
between 6 B. c. and 14 A. D., but few are mentioned, possibly four. 
Moreover, although there is mention of events of the years 17-18 
A. D., there is no allusion to the Gallic wars of 6 A. D., and, above 
all, none to the Germanic and Pannonic wars of 4-11 A. D., in which 
Tiberius played such an important and noteworthy part. This 
silence is all the more inexplicable if we admit that the Geography 
was written about 18 A. D., inasmuch as Strabo takes every occa- 
sion to praise Augustus and even Tiberius. He often mentions the 
deeds of Augustus, and records the expeditions of Tiberius in the 
year 9 B.C., against the Vindelici and Rhaeti.? Indeed, Strabo 
pushes his respect for, or his fear of, Tiberius to such a point that, 
although he mentions Octavia, the sister of Augustus, Marcellus, 
his son, and Agrippa, he is purposely silent in regard to the name 
and deeds of C. Caesar, the son of Agrippa, who was adopted by 
Augustus, and the known enemy of Tiberius, even where he records 
the siege of Artagira in which Gaius received the wound that was 
the principal cause of his death, and although he recalls the name 
of Adon, who was, as we know from other sources, the one who 
inflicted the wound. It is, therefore much more reasonable to 
suppose that the Geography was composed before 5 B. C., or even 
shortly after 9 B. Cc. 

This hypothesis is confirmed by a brief analysis of book vii, 
which is given up to a description of Germany, Illyricum, Thrace, 
etc. There it is said that, in deference to desires of Augustus, the 


t See below, pp. 390 f. 2 Strab. iv, p. 206 C., vii, p. 292 C. 

3 Strab. xi, p. 529 C.: "Aprdyeipa 5¢ dwéornce uev “Adwy 6 ppotpapxos, éfetdov 
5 of Kaloapos orparnyot modkopxicavres modvy xpdvov; cf. Dio Cass. lv. 104, a, b; 
Vell. ii. 102. 2. 


382 ANCIENT ITALY 


Roman armies never crossed the Elbe.t This was true up to 
7 B.C., but not later, for between that period and 1 A. pD. the Elbe 
was crossed by Domitius Aénobarbus, who obtained a triumph 
on account of his Germanic victories.* Strabo states that Baton 
was leader of the Breuci and Daesitiatae, two tribes of the 
Pannonians. But Baton the Breucian died in 8 A. p., killed by 
his namesake, Baton the Daesitiatan, who in g A. D. had to give 
himself up.4 Of this war on the part of Baton, which was con- 
sidered as most terrible by contemporaries, there is no trace in 
Strabo, but there are numerous mentions of the Illyric wars of 
Augustus and of the undertakings of the elder Drusus, whose 
death is also recorded.’ Since, however, in this book there is an 
isolated mention of the defeat of Quintilius Varus and of the 
triumph of Germanicus, it is but natural to suppose that the text 
was retouched in 18 A. D., although it had already been composed 
not later than 1 A.D., later than which the expedition of Aé- 
nobarbus could not have taken place. If this is admitted, it is 
also explained why Strabo says nothing of the romanizing of 
Pannonia and Moesia, which were already Roman provinces, 
the former since 10, the latter since 6 A. D.;° and why in his de- 
scription of Italy, in speaking of Ravenna, he mentions the gladia- 
tors placed there by the government,’ but does not state that Baton 
was exiled to that point. 

A confirmation of this, with even greater precision in point of 
time, is offered by the final page of the Geography, in which, among 
the provinces governed by the Roman Senate, are mentioned those 
of Achaia, Macedonia, Sardinia, Illyricum, and Gallia Nar- 
bonensis.2 Achaia and Macedonia became imperial provinces in 
15 A.D., and Sardinia in 6 A. pv. Illyricum was recaptured by 
Augustus in 11 B. c., and Gallia Narbonensis had been restored to 


t Strab. vii. 291 C.; cf. p. 294 C.: Ta 5¢ wépay rod ”“AdBuos ra mpds TE deavy 
wavrdmraciy dyvwota nuiv éore. 

2 Dio Cass. lv. 109. 2; Tac. Ann. iv. 44; Suet. Nero 4. I owe this observa- 
tion to Meyer, op. cit., p. 64. 

3 Strab. vii, p. 314. 6 See Marquardt, I, pp. 292, 302. 

4 Dio Cass. lv. 29 ff. 7 Strab. iv, p. 213 C. 

5In 9 B.c.; Strab. vii, p. 291 C. 8 Strab. xvii, p. 840 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 383 


the Senate in 22 B.c.t| We may therefore justly hold that this 
list was written between 22 and 11 B.c. It is true that Strabo 
says that this enumeration was antiquated, and that it corresponded 
to the original partition of the provinces between Caesar and the 
Senate (€v apyais 27 B.c. which was not exact, since Gallia 
Narbonensis did not become senatorial till 22 B. c.); but from this 
very assertion we conclude that the work was composed for the 
first time not long after 11 B.c., and that it was retouched at a 
later period, and probably, as we shall see, not at Rome, but far 
from that city. 

That the writing may have extended some years after 11 B.C. 
is shown, not only by the full knowledge of the Alpine wars of 
Tiberius and Drusus (9 B. c.), and the recognition of the complete 
subjugation of the Alpine peoples and the Ligurian Montani 
(25-8 B.c.)? but by the mention of certain historical events as 
having occurred recently. ‘The present state of the inhabited 
world was indicated by Strabo with the expressions xa’ yas, 
éf’ )u@v, viv, and vuvi; the events which had recently occurred at 
the time when he wrote were indicated with the adverb vewori/. 
With a veworé he records the death of Juba, king of Mauretania 
who died after 19, but not later than 23 A. D.;3 the liberality of 
Tiberius toward the cities of Asia Minor which had been afflicted 
by earthquakes; and, finally, the coronation of Zenon as king of 
Greater Armenia,’ which occurred in 18 A.D. In these passages 
vewort is used in its proper significance; but how shall we explain 
certain other passages where the word indicates events which 
occurred long before 18 A. D. ? 

_ The planting of a colony by Caesar at Corinth,® an event con- 
cerning Regium at the time of the Sicilian war of Sextus Pom- 


t Marquardt, Rém. Staatsverw., I?, pp. 248, 265, 299, 319, 33. 

2 Strabo (iv, p. 203 C.) recalls the organization of the provinces of the Mari- 
time Alps which occurred in 14 B. c. (see Marquardt, I?, p. 279). The date of the 
complete subjugation of the Alpine peoples is shown by an inscription from La 
Turbie (CIL, V, 7817) of 8 B.c., the year following that of the death of Drusus, 
which is, as it happens, recorded by Strabo. 

3 xvii, pp. 828 C., 829 C. 5 xii, p. 556 C. 

4xiii, pp. 621, 627 C.; xii, p. §79 C. 6 vii, p. 379 C.; 44 B.C. 


384 ANCIENT ITALY 


peius against Octavianus,? and the death of the Sicilian robber 
Selurus, which occurred shortly after 25 B.c.,? are recorded with 
the word vewor/; and so are also the expeditions of Varro against 
the Salassi,3 that of Aelius Gallus against Arabia,* and the return 
of Augustus, from the wars against the Cantabri.’ It seems 
natural to conclude that these various vewori’s indicate the dif- 
ferent periods when Strabo was at work upon the composition of 
his Geography. No importance attaches to the objection that 
this vewor’ should be taken in the sense of an event /Jast in 
regard to the time when Strabo wrote, and not in the sense of 
“recently,” since he indicates with a vewor/ the burning of the 
temple of Ceres near the Circus at Rome®°—an event which occurred 
in 31 B.c.”? If Strabo were really at Rome in the year 17 A. D., 
when the triumph of Germanicus which he describes took 
place, and if he wrote the first seven books of his Geography 
either in that or in the following year (as is sometimes con- 
cluded from iv, p. 206 C.), it is difficult to understand how he 
could have indicated with a vewor’ an event which had occurred 
forty-eight years before, especially since it was precisely in the 
year 17 A.D. that the temple of Ceres near the Circus Maximus, 
after having been rebuilt was dedicated anew by Tiberius.® It is 
therefore probable that he wrote of the burning many years before 
17 A.D., and that we should assign its natural signification to 
the adverb vewarl.° Moreover, if we consider that, aside from 
the vewoti’s which indicate events occurring after 17 A.D. and 
those referring to events before 24 B. C., there are but two relating 
to occurrences falling between these two dates, and that one of 


t vi, p. 258 C.; 38-36 B.C. 

2 vi, p. 273 C,; see p. 227 of my article in Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, 
PP- 97, ff. 

$iy, p:- 206 C.;: 25 BR. Cc. 6 viii, p. 381 C. 

419; \D5218'C.32 Xvi, p:.790,Gese 240 B. Go 927 io: Cass: 1 1053. 

5: XVi, p-621 C33) 24-B;-C. 8 Tac. Ann. ii. 49. 


9 The fact that Strabo often joins the adverb veworl with a xaé’ tuds or an 
é¢’ 7u@v does not detract from its meaning, since he also uses these expressions to 
indicate recent events, and those near the time when he wrote, as, e. g. (xiii, 
p. 627 C.): rod TiBeplov mpdvoa tod Kad’ huds yyeudvos; cf. my op. cit., p. 219, Nn. I. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 385 


these refers to the founding of the military colony of Patrae,’ 
and the other to the revolt of the city of Tanais, which was repressed 
by Ptolemy (an event which could have happened only between 
the years 14 and 8 B. c., when Ptolemy was king of the Cimmerian 
Bosphorus), we are again led to the same result as before—that 
there is in the writings of Strabo a great gap between the events 
referring to 7 B. Cc. and those coming after 17 A. D., and that the 
first writing of the text took place about the year 7 B. C.? 

If these conclusions are admitted to be correct, we have an 
explanation of the otherwise strange fact that in the works of 
Strabo there is neither use nor mention made of the great geo- 
graphical undertaking of Agrippa, who caused to be made the 
huge map of the empire which Augustus and Polla, the sister of 
Agrippa, displayed to the public in the portico of Vipsanius. It 
is evident that if Strabo had been at Rome when this map was 
completed and displayed, he would have made use of it, if only 
for the description of Italy and of the West. And, even if he 
had been at Rome, he could not have made use of this map before 

tIn 14 B.C.; Strab. viii, p. 387 C. 

2 Other events, the chronology of which is less certain, are indicated with a 
vewotl, In books iii, p. 141 C., ina corrupt passage Strabo speaks, as it seems, of 
the transportation of soldiers to the colony of Hispalis, which was possibly planted 
by Caesar, or perhaps later by Augustus in 25 or 15 B.C. (see my op. cit., p. 189, 
n. 3; p- 192, n. 3). In book iii, p. 169 C., the word is used in connection with a 
Roman census, which is elsewhere (v, p. 213 C.) recorded with a simple xa@ judas 
This might refer either to the census of 29-28 B. C. or to those of 8 B. C. and 14 A. D. 
(see Mommsen, Res gestae, etc., p. 36). I prefer to attribute the reference to 
one of the first two mentioned. Strabo also records with a veworl the dis- 
turbances brought about in Sparta by Eurycles (viii, p. 366C.; cf. Flav. Ios. 
Ant. Iud. xvi. 10. 1; Bell. Iud. i. 26. 1). Although chronologically it is difficult, 
or even impossible, to determine the year of the banishment of Eurycles, it is never- 
theless certain that this took place several years after 8 B. c., the year when through 
him Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Herod, perished. Indeed, two succes- 
sive accusations were needed to induce Augustus to punish him. That this entire 
passage is a later addition is shown by the coins (see below, p. 396). In like manner, 
we cannot tell when Strabo speaks of the mines of Taegetus (viii, p. 367 C.), nor 
when the ascension of Aetna occurred which several writers think was accom- 
plished by Strabo himself (p. 274 C.). In both of these cases a reworl is used. 

3 For the fact that Strabo did not make use of the map of Agrippa, see my 
article in Riv di filol. class. (Turin), XV, pp. 158 ff. In this I agree with Nissen 
(Ital. Landeskunde, I, p. 17). 


386 ANCIENT ITALY 


7 B.C., because in that year it was not yet completed. Finally, 
if we admit that Strabo completed his Geography about 7 B.c., 
when he was about fifty-eight years of age, after having, as he 
himself says,? finished his history, it follows that he wrote and 
completed this work while still in possession of all his physical 
and mental powers. If we accept the opinion of Niese that it was 
written between 18 and 19 A. D., we come to the, if not impossible, 
at least very improbable, conclusion that he undertook the writing 
of the Geography after having passed his eightieth year. 

It is of no avail to object that Strabo had already made the 
ample collection of historical material which appears in his Geog- 
raphy in previous years, while composing his purely historical 
work on Alexander the Great, and the dropvjpata icropied (which 
were a continuation of the work of the great Polybius, and which 
included even contemporaneous times. No matter how little value 
one may attach to prolegomena in which questions of mathematical 
~ and astronomical geography, and in a certain sense of historical 
geography as well, are treated, and even though Strabo is not a 
geographer in the true sense of the word, nevertheless this work 
was of necessity the result of many years of labor, and was, as 
Strabo himself says, a KoAoccouvpyla.s He would not have called 
it thus if he had, as it were, scribbled it off in a couple of years 
between 18 and 19 A.D. ‘This consideration alone should have 
prevented scholars from asserting so positively that the Geography 
was written at the time of the emperor Tiberius. 

We have said that in the Geography of Strabo there is abundant 
mention of historical facts which took place between 31 and 7 
B.C.; that there are but three or four places which record events 
falling between the years 6 B.c. and 14 A. D.; and that in about 
twenty places there is mention of Tiberius, or of events which refer 
to the years 17-18 A.D. Let us now examine briefly each of the 
seventeen books, and endeavor to discover what passages have 
been either retouched or added to the original text after the year 

t See Dio Cass. lv. 8. 4(7 B.C.): 7 5¢ év TO Tedly orod, Hv H Ild6Ada H ddeAD? 
airod 4 Kal rods Spduous diaxocujoaca érole:, ovdérw éfeipydoaro. 


23, _p. 15 C. 3i, p. 14 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 387 


17 A.D. In this way we shall find other arguments to corroborate 
our thesis. 

Books 1, ii.—In the first two books, which serve as preface, 
there is no special historical allusion later than that to the Arabian 
expedition of Aelius Gallus, which is spoken of as having “‘recently”’ 
(vewor’) occurred in 24 B.C. The other references to the wars 
against the Celts, Germans, etc., are vague and indefinite.? It 
may be noted, however, that Strabo alludes to the expedition of 
M. Antonius against the Parthians as to an event which had 
occurred not long before, and that he asserts that the Romans had 
become acquainted with Germany only as far as the Elbe+—words 
which, as we have shown, could have been written only before the 
expedition of Aénobarbus.’ In book ii, however, Strabo cites 
Cn. Piso as witness for the form of the oases of Libya: 7yenav 
yevopevos THS yopas.© Who was this Piso? Niese? asserts that 
he was the known enemy of Germanicus, who is said to have been 
proconsul of Africa,® and who, according to Tissot,? governed that 
province between 1 B.C. and 11 A.D. It is true that the expression 
HYEM@V yEevomwevos THS yopas would seem to indicate the governor 
of a province, and yet it seems to me that we should guard against 
asserting with such positiveness that this Piso was the enemy of 
Germanicus. I have shown’? that Strabo’s description of Libya 
was written with the aid of early geographers, especially Artemi- 
dorus, and with material drawn from the historians who narrated 
the wars of Jugurtha and Caesar. Except for the statement 

t Strab. ii, p. 118 C. 21, pa 10 C.,1l,, Dp..03,111 7) C- 

3i, p. 10C.; 36 B.c. Strabo here mentions the expedition against the Par- 
thians together with the ambushes of the Germans and Celts, who fought év &deor 
kal dpupois dBdros. This is the same expedition of Antonius which is mentioned 
elsewhere (e. g., xi, p. 524 C.; xvi, p. 748C.). It may also be supposed that 
Strabo alludes to the ambushes to which Quintilius Varus fell victim (9 B.c.), of 
whose defeat he speaks in the passage (vii, p. 291 C., according to my theory added 


in 18 A.D.) in which he alludes to the triumph of Germanicus. These words, 
however, may also refer to the defeat of Lollius (16 B.c.). 


41,;p:-14'G: 
5 Between 7 B.C. and 1 A.D. 8 L. Sen. De ira i. 18, 19. 
6 Strab. ii, p. 130 C. 9 Tissot, Fastes d’ Afrique, p. 44. 


7 Niese, Joc. cit., p. 44. 10 See my op. cit., pp. 205 ff. 


388 ANCIENT ITALY 


referring to Juba’s ascension of the throne of Mauretania, and to 
the death of this king, it would be useless to search for any refer- 
ence to the arrangements made by Augustus in regard to the 
provinces of Cyrenaica, Proconsular Africa with Numidia, and the 
kingdom of Mauretania itself, where various Augustan colonies 
were also located. Thus, for example, Strabo knew of the plant- 
ing of a colony by Caesar at Carthage, but does not mention 
the fact that Augustus also placed one there (29 B. c.). It seems 
strange that he did not wish to know more about the 7yeuev of 
Africa than that which was recognized by everyone, and which 
Strabo himself says was asserted by many other writers (@o7rep of 
Te GAXoL SynArovor Kal Oy Kal Tvaios Ilelowy . . . . dunyeito 
npiv). Why did he refrain from giving the same information that 
he gives in his description of Egypt and Spain? It seems possible, 
therefore, that this Piso may have been the father of the enemy 
of Germanicus, or else the Cn. Piso who fought so fiercely against 
Caesar in Africa in 47 B.c.t It is true that the expression #yeuav 
TS x@pas means, strictly speaking, “governor of the province,” 
and that the one in charge of Africa was not Piso, but Considius.? 
It should be noted, however, that the term 7ye“@v is used by Strabo 
in various senses, and to indicate Augustus, Tiberius, and the 
Roman provincial governors, without defining whether their grade 
was consular, praetorian, etc. ;+ and, finally, to denote generals and 
commanders of the Roman armies.s The expression is really 
vague and indefinite both elsewhere and here since the passage in 
question does not state that Piso was governor of Procunsular 
Africa, but tis yepas—that is to say (as is clearly seen from the 
preceding description of Libya), of the region which extended 
from Alexandria in Egypt to the Pillars of Hercules. Had Strabo 
wished to convey the idea that Cn. Piso was a governor of a prov- 
ince, he would have stated of what province, since in his time 


t Tac. Ann. ii. 43: “Cn. Pisonem ... . insita ferocia a patre Pisone, qui 
civili bello resurgentes in Africa partes acerrimo ministerio adversus Caesarem 
iuvit.” Cf. Asin. Bell. Afr. 3, 18. 

2 Cic. Pro Ligar. 1; Asin. Bell. Afr. 3. 

3 Strab. vi, p. 288 C.; xiii, p. 627 (C.; xiv, p. 675 C. 

4 xii, p, 569 C.; xiv, p. 659 C. 5 xii, p. 560C.; xiv, p. 654 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 389 


Libya embraced the two provinces of Cyrene and Proconsular 
Africa joined to Numidia. Since it is evident that in his descrip- 
tion of Libya Strabo is especially disposed to record events of the 
war of Caesar, and since the word yee is by him used to express 
various degrees of command, at times referring to Roman im pera- 
tores, and at other times to governors in general, I see no reason 
why it might not refer either to the Cn. Piso who as legatus com- 
manded the Numidian and Mauretanian cavalry in Africa,! or to 
the consul of 23 B. c.—the Piso to whom, according to Michaelis, 
Horace is said to have dedicated his famous epistle which we are 
accustomed to call the Ars poetica.? 

Book tii.—In the description of the Iberian peninsula there are 
no references to the period before 15 B.c., at which time the last 
military colonies are said to have been founded. Nevertheless, 
in one passage,* after recording the military arrangements made 
by Augustus in the western and nothern regions of the peninsula, 
Strabo goes on to say: ‘‘ Moreover, Tiberius, following the example 
of Augustus, his predecessor, sent to these regions three legions 
(i.e., the fourth Macedonian, the sixth Victrix, and the tenth 
Gemina), the very presence of which did much, not only toward 
pacifying, but also toward civilizing a portion of these peoples.” 
It seems to mie that this passage was later retouched, and that 
this statement was added merely as a sign of homage to the new 
emperor, Tiberus.5 ; 

Book iv.—iIn the description of the Gauls there is no reference 
to the period before 12 B.c., in which year Drusus dedicated the 

1 Asin. B. Afr. 3, 18. 

2A. Michaelis in the Comment. Mommsen, p. 420. 

3 Dio Cass. liv. 23. e 4 Strab. iii, p. 156 C. 

5 The reader who desires further details in this connection I refer to my article 
in Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, in which I have enumerated and discussed the 
various references in Strabo of a historical and administrative character. There, 
however (pp. 200 ff.), I wrongly stated that the mention made by Strabo to the 
administrative arrangement of the three Spanish provinces (III, p.166 C ) should 
be referred to the age of Tiberius. Strabo himself says that they refer to 27 B.c.: 
purl 5¢ r&v érapyidv Tdv wev dwodeaxGecdv r@~ Sjuw Te kal rH cvyKAHTw; cf. Mar- 
quardt, op. cit., I2, p. 253; Mommsen, Res gestae divi Aug., p. 222; Rém. Gesch., 
V;:p:-59; Heat. 


390 ANCIENT ITALY 


altar of Augustus at Lyons. By admitting that the work was 
written shortly after that year, we may explain why Strabo does 
not mention either the altar of Narbona of 11 A. D., or that of the 
Ubii, which was already in existence in 9 A. D.; and it also becomes 
clear why he does not speak of the institution of the military 
provinces of the two Germanies. I have already said that in the 
portion of this book given up to the description of the Alps there 
is no allusion to events occurring after the wars of Drusus, who 
died in 9 B. c.; and for my own part I do not hesitate to assert that 
the following words were added in 18 A. p.—words which, as it 
happens, followimmediately after the mention of the wars of Drusus 
against the Rhaetians: “So that they have now lived for thirty-three 
years in profound peace, always promptly paying their tribute.’’? 

Books v, vi.—I have already shown that the two books which 
Strabo dedicated to Italy were compiled from old material. They 
contain no references to a period earlier than 8 B.c., with the 
apparent exception of a few passages connected with the descrip- 
tion of Rome, and certain others on the final page of book vi 
(p. 288 C.), where the peoples who were subject to Rome were 
enumerated. I hope to show that these two were retouched at 
a later period. 

In speaking of the Parthians on the final page of book vi, after 
mentioning the fact that their king, Phraates, sent his sons to 
Augustus (8 B.C.), Strabo adds: ‘‘And more than once in our 
days the Parthians have caused to come from Rome the prince 
whom they wished at their head. It even seems that they are on 
the point of placing themselves and their property in the hands of 
the Romans.”4 ‘That these words contradicted what Strabo him- 
self elsewhere says of the Parthians,’ and that they do not apply to 
this people, who not many times, but once only, during the life of 
Strabo accepted a king from the Romans (i.e., Vonones; about 
8 A. D.), has been noted by Meyer,® who, rightly I think, believes 


t Strab. iv, p. 192 C. 

2 iv, p. 206 C, 4 Strab. vi, p. 288 C. 

3 Op. cit., pp. 147 ff. 5X1, Pi 5s. c. 

6 Op. cit.. p. 61. Meyer, however, neither here nor elsewhere makes good 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 391 


that they have been displaced, and that they refer to the Armenians, 
whom Strabo mentioned shortly before, and who at the time of 
Augustus four times accepted from him a king whom he favored 
and protected.? 

We must now try to decide to what year the words of Strabo 
refer. It seems to me that they can apply only to the condition of 
the Armenians in 18 A. D., when Zenon, son of Pythodoris and of 
Polemon, king of Pontus, was crowned by Germanicus as king of 
Greater Armenia (a fact which is elsewhere recorded by Strabo him- 
self).2 These words, however, do not harmonize with what Strabo 
shortly before said of the Armenians: “As to the Armenians, and 
those peoples known by the name of Albanians and Iberians who 
dwell above Colchis, they merely need the presence of a Roman 
legate. That suffices to restrain them, and if they are active today, 
it is because they know the Romans are elsewhere occupied.’ 
This condition of affairs evidently does not fit the year 18 A. D., but 
rather seems to have reference to the frequent turmoils of the pre- 
vious years which succeeded the coronation of Tigranes IT (placed 
on the Armenian throne by Tiberius in the name of Augustus, 
20 B.C.), and which lasted throughout the reign of his successor, 
Artavasdes. Indeed, these turmoils were protracted till the reign 
of Vonones (about 8 A. D.), and even till after his expulsion (about 
12 A. D.).4 In spite of these troubles, Strabo says that the Arme- 
nians were easily restrained. This statement enables us more 
easily to determine the time when these words were written, since 
they are adapted only to the time when the Parthians seized Arme- 
nia, after Tigranes II and Artavasdes had been driven from the 
throne. To restore order, Tiberius was sent by Augustus in 
6 B.c. He refused the task, however, and preferred voluntary 
exile on Rhodes,’ thus making it possible for the Parthians to 
remain in control of Armenia till 1 B. c., when C. Caesar placed the 
use of the two or three of his observations which are worthy of note, in establish- 
ing the date of the composition of the Geography. 

t See Res. gest. divi Aug. v. 24 ff. 
2 Strab. xii, p. 556 C. 4 Mommsen, Res gestae divi Aug., pp. 112 ff., 143 ff. 
3 vi, p. 288 C. 5 Vell. ii. 110. 


392 ANCIENT ITALY 


Mede Ariobarzanes on the throne. From this we are led to the 
conclusion that the original text of Strabo must have been written 
before 6 B. c. 

This being granted, it is but natural that in 18 A. D., there should 
have been added to this page the statement that the Cappadocians 
were no longer governed by their kings (Archelaus, the last king 
of Cappadocia, died in 17 A. D.), and that, after the passage recalling 
the merits of Augustus, the following words should have been 
inserted: ‘Tiberius, his son and successor, takes him as example 
in his policy and administration, just as his own children, Tiberius 
and Drusus, follow their father.”! We have seen that the final 
page of book xvii must have been written about 11 B. c., or shortly 
after. From this examination of the last page of book vi, which 
is in many respects similar to that of book xvii, we must conclude 
that it was written shortly after 8 B. c., the time when Phraates sent 
his sons as hostages to Rome, since this is the most recent fact 
which Strabo mentions in its first redaction. 

Let us now examine the description of Rome. Strabo speaks, 
it is true, of the mausoleum of Augustus, and adds: “it contains 
his remains, and those of his relatives.”? It should be noticed that 
the mausoleum was already under construction in 23 B.c., the 
year when Augustus deposited the ashes of Marcellus there, and 
that in 12 B.c., he caused to be brought thither those of Agrippa,* 
and in g B. c. those of Drusus.5 In preparing his own mausoleum 
while still alive, Augustus followed a practice which was very com- 
mon in antiquity, so that it does not seem strange that the words 
OjKai etow avtod may have been written some years before 14 
A. D., when Augustus died.© This hypothesis seems all the more 
probable when we bear in mind that of the various public edifices 
recorded in the description of Rome, not one was built after the 

t Strab. vi, p. 288 C. 

2 vi, p. 236 C. 4 Dio Cass. liv. 28. 5. 

3 Dio Cass. liii. 30. 5. 5 Dio Cass. lv. 2. 3. 


6 Much less do the preceding words, éx’ dxpy pév ody elxdy éore xardxF Tod 
ZeBacrot Kaloapos, lead us to believe that the words in question were written 
after 14 A.D. It will suffice to recall that on the Pantheon which Agrippa built: 
év 5¢ rq mpovdw Tob re Adyovorou Kal éavrod dvipidvras éornoe (Dio Cass. liii. 27. 3). 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 393 


portico of Livia which is there mentioned, and which was dedicated 
in 7 B.c.? If the description of Rome had been written after 
14 A. D., we should have expected to find in it mention of the vari- 
ous edifices dedicated in the final years of the reign of Augustus, 
such as the temple of Concord, which was dedicated by Tiberius 
in 11 A. D.;? the portico of Julius, dedicated in the following year;3 
and the temple of Ceres, which was restored and dedicated by 
Tiberius himself in 17 A. D., but which, as we have seen, is men- 
tioned by Strabo as if it had been recently destroyed (vewor/, 
although this really occurred in 31 B.c.). And, above all, we 
should have expected some reference to the portico of Vipsanius, 
which, among the various monuments of Rome, was the one most 
likely to awaken interest in the author of a geographical work. 
It was because Strabo wrote about 7 B. c. that he could not speak 
of the portico of Agrippa, which, as we have seen was not yet com- 
pleted in that year. For the same reason, although Strabo speaks 
of the triumph of Germanicus, and records the names of Thus- 
nelda and Thumelicus, in describing Ravenna, aside from the 
statement that gladiators were placed there by the government, 
he gives us no more important information than that one of the 
great imperial fleets was stationed there, and that to that city were 
exiled both Baton the Desitiatan and Thumelicus.° Does not 
this also seem to show a later working-over of book v? 

In the description of Campania, there are likewise frequent allu- 


t Becker, Rém. Alterth., I, pp. 542 ff. 
2 Dio Cass. lvi. 25. 1. 3 Dio Cass. lvi. 25 extr. 


4It may be objected that Strabo speaks of the orpariwrixdy éx r&v daedev- 
Gepwwr Gy instituted by Augustus (v, p. 235 C.), which, according to Dio Cassius, 
was organized by that emperor in 6 A.D. (lv. 26. 4). It seems to me, however, 
that Dio Cassius here alludes to the rearrangement of this body into seven cohorts; 
and that it existed as early as 36 B.C. we learn from Appian: xal é éxeivou gaol 
mapapetvat, TO THS oOTpaTLGs TOY vuKTopvAdKwy Eos Te kal eldos (B.C. v. 132) 7 eAs 
we shall see, Strabo was in Rome in that year. Without good reason, Mommsen 
(Rom. Straatsr., II, p. 1009) doubts the accuracy of this passage from Appian. 
It is but natural to suppose that Rome was not second to a small town such as 
Nemausus, where from 30 B. C. on there existed the praefectus vigilum similar to 
that of Alexandria. See Hirschfeld, Wiener Studien, V, pp. 3109 ff. 


5 Tods wovoudyxors: Strab., p. 213 C. 6 Tac. Ann. i. 58. 


304 ANCIENT ITALY 


sions to the defensive works of Agrippa, and to the undertakings at 
Lakes Avernus and Lucrinus, but no reference to the stationing of 
a fleet at Cape Misenum. Nevertheless, in speaking of Naples, 
Strabo says: “and the quinquennial games which are there cele- 
brated, and which consist of gymnastic contests and musical com- 
petitions (these competitions often last for several days in succes- 
sion), rival the best that Greece can offer in this respect.”* It 
would seem that Strabo here alludes to the celebrated games 
instituted in honor of Augustus, and termed Italic and Isolympic, 
which are frequently mentioned by the authors, and are often 
recorded in the inscriptions.2_ When were these instituted ? From 
a passage in Dio Cassius,3 Mommsen wishes to derive that they 
were dedicated to Augustus for the first time in 2 B.c. An inscrip- 
tion, on the other hand, assigns their founding to 2 A. p.4 Thus 
Dio is held to allude to them four years before the date established 
by a practically official monument. The fact is that Dio does not 
state that they were founded in that year, but merely that they 
were decreed in honor of Augustus. His words are as follows: 
avT@ dé 8 T@ Adyovotw ayar Te iepos ev Neatrorxe TH Kaprravib:, 
Adyo pev StL Kaxwbeicay adTHY Kai VITO cELTpMod Kal vd TuUpOS 
avédaBe, TO 8 arnOes érrerdy Ta TOV ‘EXAHVOY pdvol TOV TpoTYwOpav 
Tpdtrov tia €E€jdovy, éyrndicOy.3 On the other hand, it is note- 
worthy that Strabo, who often and willingly takes occasion to recall 
the deeds of Augustus and to speak of events which redound to his 
honor, although he mentions these games, does not say that they 
were dedicated by that emperor. It may be supposed, therefore, 
that the games had been in existence for some time; that a muni- 
cipal decree of the Neapolitans (Dio speaks of a municipal decree 
in 2 B.C.) consecrated them to Augustus, who a short time before 
had benefited the city when it was afflicted by earthquakes; and, 
finally, that not till the ensuing Olympiad (the word is not inap- 
propriate, since we are speaking of Isolympic games), or in 2 A. D., 


t Strab. v, p. 246 C. 
2 See Mommsen, CIL, X, p. 171; Beloch, Campanien, pp. 58 ff. 
3 Dio Cass. lv. 10. 9. 
4See CIG, no. 5805. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 395 


were they recognized as Augustan games, or as ‘Itaduxa ‘Poyaia 
LeBaota "loodrvpuma, as the inscription officially calls them.* 

Even if we grant that in this reference Strabo really alludes to 
the institution of the Augustan games in 2 A. D., we should merely 
have before us one of four passages in the Geography referring to 
events which took place between 7 B.C. and 7 A. D., and the only 
one connected with the West. And even in this case it is not diffi- 
cult to see how Strabo could have become cognizant of games which 
rivaled the best that Greece could offer, and which took place 
at Puteoli, the most important commercial port of the world at 
that time. 

Book vii.—We have already discussed this book. There only 
remains to be examined a passage where, in speaking of the Cimbri, 
Strabo says that they “sent to the emperor their most precious 
possession, a sacred caldron, asking for friendship, and pardon 
for their faults.”? Mommsen3 thinks that this passage refers to 
the Germanic expedition of Tiberius of 5 A.D. But we have seen 
that there is no mention in Strabo of the Germanic and Pannonic 
wars of Tiberius of the years 4-11 A.D. It seems to me more 
natural to believe that Strabo alludes to an event which occurred 
during the Germanic expeditions of 11-9 B.C., at which time 

t It should be noted here that in the description of Campania, in connection 
with contemporary events, there is exclusive mention of the war of Sextus Pom- 
peius and of the works of defense of Agrippa (38-35 B. C.; see Strab. v, p. 243 C.). 
Moreover, there is reference in general to the settling of colonists at Capua, but no 
specific mention of the Augustan colony which could not have been later than 
31 B.C. (see CIL, X, 3826). There is also a record of the exchange effected 
between Augustus and the Neapolitans, at the time when the emperor gave up 
Ischia to Naples and received Capri in return (29 B.C.; see Dio Cass. lii. 43). 
With these facts in mind, and also remembering that the games occurred quin- 
quennially, we may fix their first establishment either in 34 B.C., after the fall of 
Sextus Pompeius, or in 30 B. C., one year after the victory at Actium, and the year 
of the conquest of Alexandria. In the latter case the Neapolitan games would be 
but little anterior to the famous musical or gymnastic games’ (also quinquennial) 
which Augustus instituted at Nicopolis in memory of the victory at Actium (29 B. c.; 
Dio Cass. li. 2). In speaking of these, Strabo says: #yero 6é cal mpbrepoy ra 
*“Axria TO Oe@, otepavirns adywv, brd TGv meprolkwy vuvl Sé évriudrepoy éroinoev 


6 Kaicap (vii, p. 325 C.). Here, too, Augustus is said to have reorganized formerly 
existing games—a fact which Dio neglects to mention. 


2 Strab. vii, p. 293 C. 3 Mommsen, Res gest. div. Aug.?, p. 105. 


396 ANCIENT ITALY 


Drusus incorporated the Batavi and Frisones into the Roman 
Empire; proceeded with his fleet along the shores of the North Sea; 
seized several islands, among others that of Burcanis;' and 
pushed by land as far as the Elbe. According to Strabo, the 
Cimbrians asked pardon for the trouble they had made the Romans. 
This trouble could not have been caused by sea, and the fleet of 
Drusus must even have inspired respect among them. The fact 
that Strabo erroneously places the Cimbrians between the mouth 
of the Rhine and that of the Elbe,? which, he asserts, had never 
been crossed by a Roman army, in connection with the other fact, 
already alluded to, that Strabo makes no mention of the expeditions 
of Tiberius of the years 4-11 A. D., makes it all the more probable 
that the Cimbrians came in contact with the elder Drusus. As is 
known, Drusus never crossed the Elbe. 

Books viti-x.—These books, which are given up to the 
description of Greece and of the islands of the Aegean, have been 
shown by Niese? to be made up of ancient literary material, and 
are among the least rich in contemporary historical allusions. 
The most recent event‘ of the old redaction, it seems to me, is the 
reference to the founding of the military colony of Patrae (14 B. C.). 
The only passage added about 18 A. D. is that recording the death 
of the Spartan Eurycles, and the loss of ésvctacéa by his son also.5 
Coins show that Eurycles was supreme magistrate at Sparta at 
the time of Augustus, and also that his son regained the lost power 
under Claudius, but contain no record of this family at the time of 
Tiberius.® If these conclusions are valid, we must also admit 
that the passage which states that Eurycles (0 xa? pas trav 
Aaxedatpoviwv nyenov) possessed Cythera, has been retouched.? 

Book xi.—In this book, devoted to the description of the 
countries lying north and south of the Caucasus, and of the 

1 Cf. Strabo vii, p. 291 C. ‘ 

2 Strab. vii, pp. 249, 291 C. 3 Rhein. Mus., XXXII, pp. 267 ff. 

4 Indicated with a veworl; Strab. viii, p. 387 C. 

s Strab. viii, p. 366 C. 


6 For the family of Eurycles in general, and for their coins, see Weil, Ath. 
Mitth., VI (1881), pp. ro ff. 


7 Strab, viii, p. 363 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 397 


northern regions of Asia, the most recent events of those which, it 
seems to me, belong to the first redaction of the text, are the sub- 
jugation of Tanais, which rebelled against King Ptolemy between 
14 and 8 B. c.,? and the death of this kingin 8B. c.?__ The reference 
to the siege of Artagira3 I hold to have been inserted later, at the 
time of Tiberius, about 18 A.D. At this period also, or shortly 
afterward, there was added a portion of the passage in which, after 
narrating at length the deeds of Tigranes I, king of Armenia, and 
later those of Artavasdes, who died after the battle of Actium in 
30 B.C., Strabo expresses himself as follows about subsequent 
affairs: “After him [Artavasdes] Armenia had still several sover- 
eigns who reigned under the protectorate of Caesar and the Romans, 
and this protectorate endures to the present day.”4 The brevity 
of this statement, which contrasts with the elaboration of what 
goes before, is not surprising, since here as elsewhere Strabo 
neglects the events previous to the battle of Actium, for the reason 
that he had already narrated them in the History, to which his 
Geography formed an appendix and a commentary.s The words 
‘chad still several sovereigns” may refer to the various Armenian 
kings who recognized the Roman hegemony (i.e., Artavasdes, 
Tigranes III, Ariobarzanes, Artavasdes II) from after the time 
of Tigranes II, who came to the throne in 20 B.c., until that of 
Tigranes IV, who died in 36 A.D. The words, “and this protec- 
torate endures to the present day,” better suit the state of 
Armenia in 18 A. D., and agree with those of book vi, p. 288 C., 
which have certainly been displaced, and which I regard as refer- 
ring, not to the Parthians, but to the Armenians.® Another 
poszibility however, is that the last-quoted phrase was _ in- 
serted in 18 A. D., and that the preceding words, which had 
been written earlier (about 7 B. C.), were merely retouched 
in 18 A.D. 
I xi, p. 493 C. 3xi, p. 529 C.; 2 A. D.; see below, p. 426. 
2 xi, p. 495 C. 4 Xi, p. 532 C. 


5 In like manner, the references of Strabo to the Parthians (xi, p. 515 C.) and 
to the Medes (p. 523 C.) are vague and few, and difficult to place chronologically. 


6See above pp. 390 f. 


398 ANCIENT ITALY 


Books xii-xiv.—We have seen that in the books dedicated to 
Greece, a country little known to Strabo and little visited by him, 
the references to recent historical events are few and far between. 
In books xii-xiv, on the other hand, in which he describes the 
regions and provinces of Asia Minor between the Euxine and 
Aegean Seas and the Taurus, such references are fairly numerous. 
In these regions Strabo spent most of his life, and he was writing of 
familiar ground. 

The description of Cappadocia would seem at first glance to 
have been written shortly after Tiberius and the Senate had voted 
for its admission as a Roman province in 18 A.D. The words of 
Strabo are as follows: ‘What will henceforth be the admini- 
strative division of Great Cappadocia we cannot yet say, a recent 
decree of Caesar and the Senate, intervening after the death of 
King Archelaus, having placed this kingdom among the number 
of Roman provinces.”! If it were true that Strabo composed all 
of his Geography after the beginning of 18 A. D., and that in that 
year he composed at least the first four books, it would be difficult 
to explain how in such a short space of time (in a year or a little 
more), and at the age of eighty, he could have composed eight 
books (the fifth to the twelfth), which would seem to require the 
labor of many years. In that case, too, it is hard to see why, if he 
waited so long before commencing to write, no matter whether 
he lived at Rome or elsewhere, he should not have been better 
informed of the measures which the Romans had taken for the 
administration of the various provinces. If, however, we admit 
that the work was retouched here and there in its various portions, 
in 18 A. D., we find most natural the phrase just quoted, and also 
may explain why the accurate and minute description of Cappa- 
docia corresponds to the region as it existed at the time of Arche- 
laus. Of the original redaction we find a trace, for example, in the 
passage where, in speaking of Cataonia, Strabo says: “Its inhabi- 
tants, although Cataonians by origin, and nominally subject to the 
king of Cappadocia, are more correctly subject to the high-priest 


t Strab. xii, p. 534 C. Cf. the beginning of the same page, and also Tac. 
Ann. ii. 56. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 399 


[of Maj.” As a later addition may be recognized the rather 
lengthy passage in which, in describing Lesser Armenia, Strabo 
speaks of Queen Pythodoris, widow of Polemon (died 8 B. c.), and 
of Archelaus (died 17 A. D.), and of their children. Among these 
he mentions Zenon, vewoti made king of Armenia (18 A.D), and 
the daughter who married the Thracian leader Cotys, whose death 
is mentioned. The passages referring to this princess? have 
evidently been added to this book, and in part worked over, with 
the exception of xiv, p. 649 C., which may have been written earlier, 
and with the exception of the enumeration of the benefits con- 
ferred by Tiberius on Sardis and the other cities injured by 
earthquakes.‘ 

The most recent events which may be referred to the first writing 
of the text are, first, the death of Polemon,’ and, secondly, the 
bringing of Amasia under Roman control.° As additions to the 
text of book xiii may be mentioned the passage where, having 
spoken of M. Pompeius Theophanes, son of the historian and 
procurator of Augustus, Strabo says: «al viv év tois mpwrtois 
eEeraferar trav TiBepiov pirwv;’ the mention of the earthquakes 
which had recently (vewor?) devastated Magnesia near the Sipy- 
lus;? and the place where are again recounted the benefits con- 
ferred by Tiberius on the cities of Asia which these earthquakes 
had damaged.? As additions to book xiv may be cited the passage 
which mentions the island of Eleusa, the royal seat of Archelaus, 
who is spoken of as already dead, and that in which, after a long 
discourse on his friend Athenodorus, teacher and intimate friend of 
Augustus, and his administration at Tarsus, mention is made of 
the Nestor who taught Marcellus (died 22 B. c.), and who succeeded 
Athenodorus as governor of that city. Since we know that Atheno- 
dorus was alive in 8 A.D.,’° and since Nestor is spoken of as one no 
longer alive, it seems at least probable that this passage was inserted 
in the Geography shortly before 18 A. D. 


exh, ‘p. 535 C: 89 D.'C.;- Strab.: xi, p.: 565 C. 
218 A.D.; xii, pp. 555 ff. 7 xiii, p. 618 C. 

3xi, p. 499 C.; xii, pp. 557-59 C. 8 xiii, p. 621 C. 

4x, ps'579'Cs3, TP A.D: Oty, po 627 C.\ 37-4, D: 


S xii, pp. 556C., 558C.; 8B.c. 'See Eusebius, ed. Schéne, II, p. 146. 


400 ANCIENT ITALY 


On the other hand, the passage in which, concerning the Cilician 
Tarcondimotus who died in 31 B.C., it is said, Tiv Suadoynv Tois 
pet’ avtov tapédwxe,* seems to have been written long before 
18 A. D., since it contains allusions to the two Philopaters, of 
whom the first came to the throne in 20 B. c., and the second died 
in 17 A. D.?_ If, as is not improbable, their principality was added 
to Syria in 18 A. D.,3 as was Commagene (the transformation of 
which to a province is known to Strabo, xvi, p. 749 C.), we must 
admit either that Strabo forgot to work over this passage, or else 
that in 18 A. D., when he revised his work, no action had as yet 
been taken in regard to this small Cilician state. These two 
hypotheses may easily be made to agree. If we remember that in 
the above-quoted passage Strabo declares that he does not know 
what measures the Romans had taken in regard to Cappadocia, 
and that he shows himself ignorant of the fact that a small state 
in Cilicia had been given to the successors of Archelaus,* we may 
conclude that he retouched his text before Germanicus had suc- 
ceeded in putting in order the affairs of all the oriental provinces 
(i.e., in 19 A.D., when he went to Egypt). To the second 
redaction of the text, finally, would belong the passage referring to 
the deeds of P. Sulpicius Quirinius against the fierce Homonades,° 
since, as Mommsen has made practically certain,’ these pirates 
were destroyed by Quirinius about 3-2 B. c.® 

Book xv: India, Persia.—Like book xi, this contains very few 
allusions to contemporary events. The most recent is certainly 

t Strab. xiv, p. 676 C. 

2 See Marquardt, I2, p. 386. 3See Nipperdey ad Tac. Amn. ii. 56. 

4 Which, if not certain, is at least very probable (see Marquardt, I, p. 384). 

5 Tac. Ann. i. 59. 

6 Strab. xii, p. 569 C. 7 Res gest., etc., pp. 172 ff. 

8 At first glance it would seem as if to the passages hitherto examined should 
be added the statement that Strabo, when a youth, studied at Nysa. Although he 
mentions the people of this city (xiv, p. 650 C.), he does not speak of that of Rome 
and Augustus, which is attested by an inscription of 1 B. c. (see CIG, no. 2943). 
This may be due to one of two reasons, one of which is as probable as the other: 
either Strabo did not return to Nysa at a mature age, in the years when he wrote 


his Geography, or else his work was first written before the temple of Rome and 
Augustus was erected. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 401 


the reference to the ‘Indian embassy which Augustus received at 
Samos in 20 B.c.’ Nevertheless, p. 719 C., where Strabo dis- 
cusses minutely the gifts brought to Augustus, would seem to 
belong to a second redaction, commencing with the words: mpoo- 
Gein 8 av Tis TovTOLS Kal TA Tapa TOD AapacKknvod Nixodaov. 

The historical works of Nicolaus of Damascus were possibly 
not known to Strabo till the last years of his life, since the great His- 
tory of Nicolaus reached at least as far as the death of Herod,? and 
perhaps even farther. That Strabo here added a page to a work 
which had been written earlier appears all the more probable when 
we remember that this embassy had already been mentioned by 
him in another place. Bearing in mind the fact that in this 
second passage (p. 719 C.) he speaks of himself as having been an 
eyewitness to some of the things mentioned by Nicolaus of Damas- 
cus (cf. p. 706 C.), we are led to the conjecture that in the first 
redaction of the text he had reference merely to Indian prodigies 
in the passage in question, adding something of his own to what 
had been said by his predecessors (of whom the last quoted is 
Artemidorus), and that, having later chanced upon the work 
of Nicolaus, who treated more at length of the embassy and of the 
gifts seen by him at Antioch in Syria, he drew from this author for 
the inserted page, and added, in the case of the herm, the words 
“which we ourselves saw.” 

Book xvi: Syria, Judea, Arabia, and the neighboring regions.— 
This book also has been revised in places. Strabo records the 
fact that Commagene became a Roman province,‘ speaks of the 
family of Herod, king of Judea, and tells of the fate of his sons, 
one of whom év guyn SieréXet rapa tois "AdACBpi—& Tararais.s 
Since Archelaus was exiled to Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis in 
6 A. D., although we have no reference to the date of his death, it is 
probable that this passage was inserted not much before 18 A. D. 
We may, indeed, even suspect that the authority for these state- 
ments was the History of Nicolaus of Damascus. We also find a 


‘Strab.-xv, p: 719 C-3) chip: 686'C- 
2See Miller, F. H. G., III, p. 344. 4xvi, p. 749 C.; 18 A. D. 
3 Strab., xiv, p. 686 C. 5 xvi, p. 765 C- 


402 ANCIENT ITALY 


later addition in the passage referring to thé wars of the Romans 
against the Parthians up to the time of Crassus. After narrating 
the services of Phraates to Augustus, speaking at length of the 
sending of his sons, Seraspadanes, Rhodaspes, Phraates, and Vono- 
nes, as hostages to Rome, and after having asserted that “one 
may still see at Rome certain of the sons of Phraates, keeping a 
royal following at the expense of the public treasury”*—words 
which suit the period preceding 8 A. D., after which time Vonones 
became king of his country?—Strabo adds: “And the Parthian 
kings have always continued to send embassies to Rome and to 
hold conferences [with the Roman governors of Syria].’’3 

These embassies took place, first, at the time of Phraataces, 
son of Phraates, who in 4 B. c. sent a legation to Rome to receive 
back his brothers, and who in 1 A. D. held a conference with C. 
Caesar on an island in the Euphrates; again, when Vonones was 
sent by Augustus to the Parthians after 8 A. D.; and, finally, when 
Artabanus conferred with Germanicus in 18 A. D. on the banks of 
the Euphrates.4 The words oé dorrol S€ Baorreis lead us to 
think of at least two of the successors of Phraates. Even on the 
supposition that Strabo alludes only to Phraataces (died 4 A. D.) 
and Orodes (4-8 A. D.), we must admit that this passage was added 
at least twenty years after the time we have established for the 
first redaction of the text. Since, however, Strabo is cognizant of 
the measures taken by Germanicus in 18 A. D., it is very probable 
that he alludes also to the conference of Germanicus with Arta- 
banus, and that he at least refers to the time when Parthia had a 
king who was friendly to Rome—i. e., Vonones. In the brevity of 
its references to the relations between the Parthians and Romans 
after 8 B. c. this passage recalls vividly the analogous descriptions 
of the relations between the Armenians and Romans after the battle 

I xvi, p. 749 C. 

2 For the chronology of the events mentioned both here and later I refer to 
Momnsen, Res. gest., etc.2, pp. 141 ff.; cf. Gardner, “The Parthian Coinage,” 
in Head, Hist. num., pp. 691 ff. The words of Strabo possibly allude to the 


deaths of Seraspadanes and Rhodaspes (cf. CIL, VI, 1799), which occurred at 
Rome, but unfortunately we are ignorant of the dates. 


3 Strab. xvi, p. 749 C. 4Tac. Ann. ii. 58. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 403 


of Actium.! The first writing of this book, therefore, I believe 
to have occurred shortly after 8 B.c., at which time the sons of 
Phraates came to Rome. With this terminus agree the passage 
relating to the founding of the colony of Berytus,? and also the 
statement in the account of the expedition of Aelius Gallus to 
Arabia, to the effect that the traitor Sillaeus paid the penalty for 
his crimes in Rome3—an event which took place in 7 B. c.4 
That Strabo really composed this section of his work much earlier 
is, however, shown by his statement that the village of Egra was in 
the territory of Obodas,’ although Obodas, whom he refers to as 
if still living, died in 7 B. c.,° and was succeeded by Aretas IV,’ a 
fact of which Strabo isignorant. Since, in speaking of this Arabian 
expedition of Aelius Gallus, Strabo says, oTpateia vewoti yevn- 
Gcica éf’ jya@v,® we are led to believe that he wrote not only this 
book, but also book ii, in which this expedition is mentioned as 
having occurred veworé,® shortly after 25-24 B.C., or, in other 
words, shortly after the time when the expedition occurred. 

Book xvii.—The same holds true for the last book of the 
Geography, the first portion of which was written not long after 
the voyage which Strabo undertook in company with Aelius Gallus 
as far as the confines of Ethiopia (23-22 B.C.), and also not long 
after the expedition of Gallus against Petronius (23-22 B. c.), and 
the arrival of the Ethiopian expedition at Samos (20 B. c.).*° Strabo 
alludes with a vuvié to the three legions which guarded Egypt.'! 
This distribution of the legions, however, although true for 20 B. c., 
does not correspond to the conditions at the time of Tiberius, nor 
possibly even during the final years of the reign of Augustus, since 
we know that at that period Egypt was guarded by only two le- 
gions, the Third Cyrenaica and the Twenty-seecond Deiotariana.*? 

x Strab. xi, p. 332'C.;: cf x1,-pp..515 C., §23°C:; vi, p. 283.C. 

$14 B.'C.5. Xvi, p.-756 GC. 3 xvi, p. 782 C. 

4 Flav. Jos. Ant. Iud. xvi. 9. 8; xvii. 3. 2; Bell. Iud. i. 29. 3. 

5 Strab. xvi, p. 782 C. 


6See Flav. Jos. Ant. Iud. xvi. 9. 4. 941, Pp: T18iCz 
7CfiistrabsXVi, ps7o1-C: 10 xvii, p. 819 C. 
8 xvi, p. 780 C. 11 xvii, p. 807 C.; cf. p. 797 C. 


12 See Tac. Ann. iv. 5; Mommsen, Res. gest., etc., pp. 68 ff. 


404 ANCIENT ITALY 


On the other hand, the mention of the obelisks which were brought 
to Rome is in harmony with what we have elsewhere observed 
regarding the time when the Geography was first put in final form. 
This event, the most recent indicated in the description of Egypt,* 
is shown by the inscriptions? to have occurred before Io B. Cc. 
The second part of this book (Proconsular Africa and Numidia, 
Mauretania and the neighboring regions), as I have shown else- 
where,? was built up from early geographers, especially Artemi- 
dorus, and from the historians of the wars of Jugurtha and Caesar. 
In it there is no reference to events of the time of Augustus, as, for 
example, the Augustan colony of 29 B. c. at Carthage, while, on 
the other hand, the colony planted there by Caesar is mentioned.5 
The one exception to this is the reference to the founding of the realm 
of Mauretania which was granted to Juba,° whose death, indeed, 
is twice recorded. The death of Juba occurred after the year 18 
and before 23 A. D.?_ A reading of this final portion of book xvii 
leads to the conviction that Strabo commenced writing it not long 
after 20 B.c. The mention of the death of Juba, who on the final 


t Strab. xvii, p. 805 C. 2 CIL, VI, 7o1, 702. 3 Op. cit., p. 205. 

4In my article in Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, I noted various passages in 
book xvii which seemed derived frem a work entitled Bellum Africanum (e. g., 
xvii, pp. 831 C. ff.; cf. Bell. Afr. 33.87). Since then Landgraf (Untersuchungen zu 
Caes. u. seinen Fortsetzern, Erlangen, 1888) has shown that this should be attributed 
to Asinius Pollio. This makes even more evident the relation between this work and 
Strabo, who cites Asinius as witness both in his Geography (iv, p. 193 C.) and in 
his History (see Flav. Jos. Ant. Iud. xiv. 8. 3). The question remains as to whether 
Strabo knew of the writings of Asinius at first hand, or through Timagenes, one of 
his known sources (iv, p. 188 C.; cf. Ant. Iud. xiii. 11. 3), and who grew old in the 
house of Asinius (L. Sen. De ira iii. 23). I am inclined to believe that Strabo 
quoted Asinius on the authority of Timagenes, since he shows neither much knowl- 
edge of, nor respect for, the Roman authors (see my op. cit., pp. 103 ff.), and since, 
in the passage where Asinius is quoted as authority for the length of the Rhine, the 
distance is given, not in Roman miles, but in stades. When elsewhere Strabo cites 
a Roman source, such as Artemidorus (cf. v. pp. 224 ff., 261 C.; vi, pp. 266, 
277 C.), he gives the distance in Roman miles. Moreover, in the description of 
Gaul, shortly before the mention of Asinius, his friend Timagenes is quoted. > 

5 Strab. xvii, p. 833 C.; 44 B.C. 625 B.C; Strab. xvii, p. 828 C. 

71 confess to not being entirely convinced by the arguments of a numismatic 
character (see Miiller, Numis. d’ Afrique, III, pp. 113 ff.) which attempt to show 
that Juba died in 23 A.D. On the other hand, I see no reason for asserting, with 
Niese (Hermes, XIII, p. 35), that he must have died in 19 A. D. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 405 


page of book vi is spoken of as alive (p. 288 C., where he is spoken 
of as having assumed the rule of Mauretania; 25 B.c.), confirms 
us in the belief that the two passages, “‘ Juba has recently died, leav- 
ing as successor and heir his son Ptolemy, whose mother was a 
daughter of Antony and Cleopatra,’”’* and “This region... . 
fell to... . Juba in our time [the father of Juba II, who re- 
cently died],”? were retouched and added to after 18 A. D. 


To sum up: In the entire Geography there are but two or three 
passages which allude to events occurring after 7 B. c., and referring 
to the final years of Augustus; and of these events possibly but one 
(the games at Naples) has reference to the West. We have also 
noted about twenty passages which were either worked over or added 
to at a later period, in which mention is made of Tiberius, or of 
events occurring in the first years of his reign, and especially in 
17-18 A.D. The great majority of these passages are in the books 
devoted to the description of the eastern provinces, and, although 
a few are found in book vi, these too refer to the East. Five 
passages only refer to the West, and of these, two alone refer to 
special events, such as the death of Juba and the triumph of 
Germanicus. Of the other three, one makes a vague and general 
allusion to Tiberius;# one, to Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus;5 
while one states that thirty-three years had elapsed since the vic- 
tories of the elder Drusus.° 

This lacuna between the events occurring before 7 B.c. and 
after 17 A. D. leads me to believe that the Geography was first 
written not much later than 7 B. c., and that it was hastily worked 
over in 18 A. D., or shortly afterward. Ido not think, however, that 
it was originally written within a short space of time. There 
seems reason to hold that it was begun by Strabo not long after 
the completion of his historical works, to which the Geography 
was an appendix and commentary. He expressly states that the 


t Strab. xvii, p. 828 C. 2 xvii, p. 829 C. 

3I do not count the two places where Strabo speaks of the family of Herod 
(died 4 B. c.) and of Athenodorus of Tarsus (alive in 8 B. c.), since these references 
are closely connected with others referring to an earlier period (see above, pp.399 f.). 


4iii, p. 156 C.; see above, p. 389. Svi, p. 288C. Siv, p 206C. 


406 ANCIENT ITALY 


Geography was “on the same plan” as his earlier works, and that, 
like them, it was written “for the same men, and especially for 
those who occupy high positions.”* His greater historical work, 
which unfortunately has been lost, narrated even the contemporary 
events down to 27 B. C.,? and we may surmise that he set about the 
compilation of the Geography not much later than that year. In 
the description of Arabia, and in that of Egypt and Libya, we have 
noted certain indications which tend to show that the original 
redaction of the text of these books could not have occurred much 
later than 20 B.c. ‘This archaic flavor, so to speak, is felt also in 
the books given up to Italy (v, vi) and to Greece (viii-x), and in 
the first two books, which serve as preface, and which may have 
been written not long after 16 B.c.3 At a later period, certainly 
not earlier than 9 B. c., Strabo wrote the books dedicated to Gaul 
and Germany.* In general, we have seen that in his Geography 
Strabo recorded events down to 7 B. C., whether because these had 
also been treated in appendices to his History, or because—what 
seems more probable—he considered the Geography an appendix 
to the History, and in it wished to recount, or at least to enumerate 
at length, the later events, just as he did in regard to the Arabian 
and Ethiopian expeditions of Gallus and Petronius (25-22 B.C.), 
and in the case of the administration of the Gauls under 
Augustus, Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus (27-9 B. C.). 

The final page of book xvii, which offers a general survey of the 
Roman Empire and provinces,’ would seem to have been written 
between 22 and 11 B.C., although other arguments would lead us 
to think that the Geography was not finished till about 7 B. c. 

It is not difficult to discover the motives which led Strabo to 

21, p.19'C: 

2 Otto (op. cit., p. 13) thinks that Strabo carried his history down to 27 B. Cc. 
This conclusion he bases on the final page of book xvii (p. 840 C.), which alludes 
to the division of the provinces into senatorial and imperial, and where it is said 
that in that year Augustus became arbitrator for life in matters pertaining to peace 
and war. Previous critics (among these Miiller, F. H. G., III, p.. 490) have 
thought that the History continued down to 31 B.C.; i. e., to the battle of Actium. 
It seems to me, however, that the opinion of Otto is preferable. 

3 See above, p. 383, and note 1. 

4iv, vii; see above, pp. 389, 395. 5P. 840 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 407 


complete his work at that period, and to confine himself to men- 
tioning only the events which took place before that year. Strabo 
wrote’ from the point of view of a Greek, and, furthermore, of a 
Greek from Asia Minor, and probably also from the point of view 
of an Amasiot. After the battle of Actium, and the subsequent 
measures taken by Augustus (who visited the eastern provinces in 
31-29 and 21-19 B.C.) and by Agrippa (14-13 B. C.), who, among 
other things, put in order affairs near the Bosphorus, the Greek 
East was thrown into confusion by the death of Polemon, king of 
Pontus, Lesser Armenia, and the Bosphorus; and, as is shown by 
the coins, in the following year the region in which Amasia was 
situated became part of a Roman province. 

After the death of Polemon and that of the last king of Paphla- 
gonia, which bordered on Pontus,? no noteworthy event occurred 
in Roman Asia Minor, with the exception of the death of Herod 
(4 B. C.), which gave rise to the struggle between his sons,3 and of 
the sending of C. Caesar, who died in the midst of his undertaking ;4 
and with the further exception of the death of Augustus (14 A. D.), 
and of the arrival of Germanicus, who was sent there in 18 A. D. 
with full power as Agrippa and Gaius had been. Germanicus 
renewed the ancient relations with the Parthians, gave to the 
Afmenians a king who was friendly and subject to the Romans, and 
incorporated in the empire both Commagene and Cappadocia. 
The death of Augustus was an event of great importance for the 
entire empire. With the succession of Tiberius the new political 
form which had been created by C. Caesar was permanently 
established. It was this, without doubt, which compelled Strabo 
to revise his work, if only for the purpose of inserting the name of 
the new ruler. The passage in which he speaks of the Spanish 
garrison was worked over, not for the purpose of adding anything 
new, but merely to make mention of Tiberius.s For the same 


t See my article in Riv. di filol. class. XV, pp. 99-122. 

2 Died at about this period; see below, p. 424, note 2. 

3 Strab. xvi, p. 765 C. 

4 Mentioned indirectly by Strabo in speaking of Artagira, xi, p. 529 C.; see 
above, p. 381. 

5 See above, p. 389. 


408 ANCIENT ITALY 


reason Strabo added the final words of book vi.t_ In like manner 
the arrival of Germanicus in the East, and the measures taken by 
him, changed the aspect of a portion of Asia Minor, and especially 
of the region near Amasia, bordering on the Pontus and Cappa- 
docia. The queen of Pontus, Pythodoris, saw her son, Zenon, 
ascend the throne of Greater Armenia and Cappadocia, and the 
realm of her second husband, Archelaus, become a Roman 
province. 

It seems most probable that, just as the death of Polemon and 
the incorporation of Amasia into the Roman Empire marked the 
end of the first redaction and first definite arrangement of the text, 
so the arrival and sojourn of Germanicus in Asia Minor (18-19 
A. D.) caused Strabo to take up the work which he had written 
twenty-five years earlier and to bring it down to date by inserting 
recent events. 

Certainly, if Strabo had not commenced to write his Geography 
till after 18 A. D., and if he were at that time in Rome, he would 
not have overlooked the new geographical documents, such as 
the map of Agrippa, and the recent historical works, such as that 
of Isidorus of Charax on the Parthians. In reality he was then 
old, having passed his eightieth year, and naturally lacked the 
strength and enthusiasm necessary for the composition of the volt- 
minous work which he himself did not shrink from calling “colos- 
sal.”? He, therefore limited himself to mentioning the most 
important of the events which came to his notice. With a few 
lines here and there, as in the case of the Armenians and Parthians,3 
he alluded to conditions as they were after 7 B. c., and, when he was 
able, added a few references to the state of affairs under Tiberius. 
As we shall see below, he was possibly far from Rome when he 
revised his work. He was a writer of historical works bearing 
especially upon the East,4 which he understood much better than he 

1 See above, p. 392. 2 Strab. i, p. 14 C. 3 See above, pp. 390 f. 


4 This much, it seems to me, may be asserted with certainty. Of the two 
historical works of Strabo, one treated of Alexander the Great, the conqueror of 
the East, and the cause of the hellenizing of the interior of Asia Minor; the other 
described the events which occurred between 146 and 27 B.C., in continuation of 
the history of Polybius. The numerous historical allusions in the Geography are 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 409 


did the West," and, in narrating the events of 17-18 A. D., he was 
naturally cognizant of the most noteworthy events connected with 
Asia Minor. He therefore recorded the deeds of Quirinius (3-2 
B. C.), the death of the Idumean Herod and the rivalry of his sons, 
and the various events of the year 17-18 A. D., such as the aid given 
by Tiberius to the Asiatic cities, and the chief measures taken by 
Germanicus. He does make mention of the triumph of Germani- 
cus over the Germans, but in general the West was, and always 
remained, less known to him. Even though in the books given up 
to the description of the West he mentions the new emperor, 
Tiberius, either his strength failed him, or he was without the more 
exact information which would have permitted him to go farther 
into detail. For that reason, in the books in which he speaks of 
the Germans and Pannonians, he does not mention the deeds of 
Tiberius, even though he did insert a reference to the triumph of 
Germanicus. In short, about 18 A. D. Strabo merely retouched a 
work which described conditions in the empire twenty-five years 
earlier. This retouching of the Geography occurred simultane- 
ously for all of the books, and probably in a single year. This 
is shown by the fact that book iv (p. 206 C.) was worked over in 
18 A.D.; that at the end of book vi (p. 288 C.) Germanicus is 
spoken of as alive;? and that in book xii (p. 534 C.) Cappadocia is 
mentioned as having recently become a Roman province (18 A. D.). 
The reference to the death of Juba alone? may possibly exceed this 
limit. The exact date when this occurred is unknown;* but, at 
any rate, this would be the only page revised after 18 A. D. 

We have conjectured that events in Pontus and Cappadocia 
gave occasion for the first and second redactions of the text of the 
Geography. This hypothesis is rendered all the more probable by 
the following examination of the relations which may have existed 
between Strabo, Amasia, and the kings of Pontus. 


for the most part to Alexander the Great or his conquests, to the wars of Mithri- 
dates, or to those of Pompey and Caesar in the East, etc. Whoever wishes a proof 
of this has but to read the collection of Otto, op. cit. 

1 See above, pp. 414 ff. 

2 Germanicus died October 8, 19 A. D.; See CIL, X, 6638. 

3 Strab. xvii, p. 828 iC: 4 See above, p. 404, n. 7. 


410 ANCIENT ITALY 


Il THE LIFE OF STRABO AND THE PLACE WHERE. HE WROTE HIS 
GEOGRAPHY 


Strabo was born at Amasia on the Pontus about 64 B.c.t In 
his youth he heard the readings of Aristodemus at Nysa in Caria.? 
Possibly the turmoils and displacements of interests which occurred 
in Pontus as a consequence of the victories of Pompey and the 
overthrow of the power of Mithridates the Great, caused the 
parents of Strabo, mistrusted by Pompey, to abandon Amasia.3 
Possibly the youthful Strabo was sent to Nysa mercly because of 
the close relations which, even during the reign of Mithridates, 
existed between the cities of the Roman provinces of Asia and 
Pontus.4 At any rate, it is fairly certain that at about the age of 
twenty, and not merely in 29 B.c., as Niese and others hold, he 
went to Rome by way of Corinth.’ Quite possibly it was at that 


t Concerning the date of Strabo’s birth there seems no reason for dis- 
crediting the conclusions of Niese (Rhein. Mus., XXXVIII, pp. 567 ff.), who 
places it in 64 or 63 B.c. No value attaches to the argument advanced by Meyer 
(Quaestiones Strabonianae (Leipzig, 1879], p. 54, n. 14), and accepted by Schréter 
(Bemerkungen zu Strabo [Leipzig, 1887], p. 3), based on the passage where Strabo 
states that in his time and after the disbanding of the pirates (i. e., 67 B.C.) the 
dynasty of Teucer reigned in a small part of Cilicia (Olbe). It is true that certain 
Cilician cities, such as Pompeiopolis (Soli) and Alexandria, date their era from 
67 B.c. (Head, Hist. num., pp. 598, 611), but it is also true that Cilicia was 
reorganized by Pompey in 64 B.c. See Marquardt, of. cit., I2, p. 382, n. 7. 

2 Strab. xiv, p. 651 C. extr. 

3 Strabo states that Pompey did not confer on his paternal relations the benefits 
and favors promised them by Lucullus, on account of their having betrayed 
Mithridates. He even brought it about that, at Rome and after 62 B.c., the 
measures taken by Lucullus in favor of his friends in Asia were abrogated by the 
Senate (xii, p. 557 C.). This is confirmed by the account in Plutarch (Pomp. 38; 
Luc. 18). Hasenmiiller (De Strabonis Geographi vita [Bonnae, 1863], p. 5) 
attempts to show that these relations were on the father’s side. In the phrase 6 
wdnmos Huay 6 mpds marpos aris he does not find a corruption of the text, as do 
the best editors of Strabo, but thinks the word ATTH2 is the name of the paternal 
grandfather. In general this hypothesis seems correct. If, however, we bear in 
mind the passage where Strabo mentions the names most common in the regions 
of Paphlagonia and Pontus on both banks of the Halys, and thus in his own country 
(xii, p. 553 C.), it seems possible that the name ATTH2, which really seems cor- 
rupt, might be changed to AINIATHZ, 


4See Appendix. 
5 This I have attempted to prove in my op. cit., p. 228. The words eldouer 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 4II 


time (44 B. c.) that he met Servilius Isauricus,t who died that 
same year. Moreover, Strabo was certainly in Rome in 35 B.c., 
or shortly after,? and was also there in 31 B.C. or earlier, because 
in that year occurred the burning of the temple of Ceres, in 
which, he says, he saw a painting by Aristides. At this period, 
possibly shortly after 44 B.c., Strabo heard at Rome the famous 
grammarian Tyrannio,# whom Lucullus had brought to that 
city in 66 B.c. Some time during the year 29 B. c. Strabo made 
the voyage from Asia Minor to Corinth, and tells of the fishermen 
of the island of Gyaros who came aboard his vessel and proceeded 
to Corinth. These fishermen were ambassadors charged with 
securing a reduction of the tribute from Augustus, who was on 
his way to Rome to celebrate his triumph after the victory at 
Actium.’ It is generally held that Strabo was also on his way 
to Rome at that time. This is probable, and it is also possible 
that he had been at Nicopolis, which Augustus had just founded 
on account of the recent victory.° Several years later we find him 
in Egypt, where in 25 and 24 B. c. he accompanied Aelius Gallus 
as far at the Cataracts. It is not true, however, as Niese holds, that 
Strabo went to Egypt with Aelius Gallus, and returned with him to 
Rome.’ Strabo is aware, both of the Arabian expedition of Aelius 
Gallus and also of the Ethiopian expedition of his successor, Petro- 
nius (24-22 B.C.). Hespeaks with praise, not of the first-mentioned 
alone, but in general of all the governors of Egypt.2 The mention 
[i. e., Corinth] vewori dvadnddelons brd r&v ‘Pwyalwy (viii, p. 379 C.) may easily 
refer to the year 44 B.C., when the colony was planted. This is shown by other 
statements referring to the time and place, given in this passage. It may be added 
that the words xal jets dd Tod ’AxpoxopivOov xatwrrevoayev 7d xricua make it 


all the more probable that Strabo saw the city shortly after Caesar planted a colony 
there. 


t Strab. xii, p. 568 C.; cf. Cic. Phil. ii. 5. 12; Dio Cass. xlv. 16. 

2 The Selurus whom Strabo saw perish at Rome was certainly one of the fugi- 
tive slaves who were defeated in Sicily either by Octavianus or by his legates. 
See Dio Cass. xlviii. 36; xlix. 12; App. Bel. civ. v. 72. 132; cf. Oros. vi. 18; 37- 
25'B. C. 

3 Strab. viii, p. 381 C. Svil, pp. 324 G..H.; x, p: 4s0.C, 

4 xii, p. 548 C. 7 Hermes, XIII, p. 42. 

5x, p. 485 C. 8 Strab. xvii, p. 797 C. 


412 ANCIENT ITALY 


which he makes of the temple of Ceres at Alexandria,' which a 
recently discovered inscription shows to have been dedicated in 
13-12 B. C., formerly led me to believe that he remained at Alex- 
andria until that year.2, An argument in favor of this hypothesis 
may perhaps be found in the passage where Strabo describes 
Egypt. In this he makes mention of two obelisks which were 
carried to Rome. These were the obelisks dedicated by Augustus 
in the year 10 B. c.3 These conclusions, however, have no absolute 
value. It may be objected that Strabo saw the obelisks raised at 
Rome, and that he could have spoken of the Kascapeiov even 
before 13 B. C., since it is not necessary to conclude that he saw it 
completed in every part. At any rate, I think I can show by a new 
line of reasoning that Strabo remained at Alexandria even after the 
departure of Aelius, and that the expression pets émidnpodvtes 
tn AreEavdpela roddv xpdvor4 alludes to a period of several years’ 
duration. 

In book xv, in connection with the description of Egypt, and 
on the authority of Nicolaus of Damascus, whom he met at Antioch, 
Strabo enumerates the gifts sent to Augustus at Samos in 20 B. C. 
To use his own words, they comprised “‘a herm, the subject of 
which had had both arms amputated from its earliest infancy, and 
which we ourselves have seen at Rome; vipers of very large size; 
a serpent ten cubits long; a river tortoise of three cubits, etc.’’5 
Where could Strabo have seen this mutilated herm? Schréter 
thinks it could only have been at Rome and in the royal palace.® 
A statement of this nature shows a disregard of the passage of 
Suetonius, where, in speaking of Augustus, it is said: “ludebat 
cum pueris minutis, quos facie et garrulitate amabilis undique 
conquirebat precipue Mauros et Syros. eam pumilos atque dis- 
tortos et omnis generis eiusdem ut ludibra naturae malique ominis 


t xvii, p. 794 C. 

2See Add. ad CIL, III, 6588; cf. my article in Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), 
XV, p. 229. 3 

3See CIL, VI, 701, 702. 

4Strab. ii, p. ror C. 5 Strab. xv, p. 719 C. 

6 Schriter, Bemerkungen zu Strabo (Leipzig, 1887), p. 7. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 413 


abhorrebat.”! It seems more probable that Strabo saw this herm 
in Egypt, and very possibly in Alexandria, as may be concluded 
from a passage in the same description of India. In speaking 
of the wild beasts of that region, it is said: “Aristobulus states 
that he was not able to verify in person the dimensions which 
certain reptiles are reported to attain, and merely says that he saw 
a female viper nine cubits and one span in length. We ourselves 
when in Egypt saw with our own eyes a viper of about the 
same size.”? A comparison between the two passages makes 
it more than probable that Strabo was in Egypt at the time 
when Augustus was at Samos. At the end of the description 
of the Ethiopian expedition of Petronius, Strabo alludes to 
this circumstance where he states that the ambassadors sent by 
Petronius came to Samos, because the emperor was at that time on 
the island. After 20 B. c., however, Strabo was again in Rome. 
This is shown, in the description of the city, by the mention of 
various edifices which were erected later than that year. Thus, the 
mention of the three theaters refers, in addition to the ancient 
theater of Pompey, to those of Cornelius Balbus and of Marcellus, 
dedicated in 13 B.c.4 There is also mention of the mausoleum of 
Augustus, the construction of which was fairly well advanced in 12 
B. C., and of the portico of Livia, which was dedicated in 7 B. c. 

It now remains to decide whether Strabo was in Italy, and at 
Rome, after this year. The mention of the festivals at Naples, 

t Suet. Aug. 83. 2 Strab xv, p. 706 C. extr. 


3 xvii, p. 821 C.; cf. Dio Cass. liv. 9. I find an argument in favor of the 
view that Strabo was in Rome after 24 B. c., and which substantiates the thesis of 
Niese, in Strabo’s account of Athenaeus of Seleucia, who fled with Murena (the one 
who conspired against Augustus in 22 B.c.). He was arrested with Murena, but 
was later found innocent and liberated. When embraced by his friends on his 
return to Rome, Strabo says that he replied by quoting the words of Euripides: 
fikw vexp@v KevOudva cal oxérov widas Aiwwy (xiv, p. 670C.). But, aside from 
the fact that Strabo may have heard of this elsewhere and later, from mutual friends, 
it should be noted that the line of Euripides makes one suspect that the words es 
‘Péunv are erroneous (even Meineke marks them with an asterisk). We are led 
to surmise that Athenaeus returned to his own country, where he had been at the 
head of the government, and that we here should read é« ‘Pwuys instead of els 
‘Pounr. 

4 Dio. liv. 25. 26. 


414 ANCIENT ITALY 


and the description of the triumph of Germanicus, seem to suggest 
a later visit to Italy. We have seen, however, that the quin- 
quennial festivals of Naples may have been established long before 
2 B.C. At all events, as we have already said, Naples was very 
close to Puteoli, the most important harbor, from a commercial 
point of view, in the world, and it is not difficult to explain how 
Strabo, although remaining in Asia Minor, could have received 
information of games which rivaled the best that Greece could offer. 
In the same way, even though he remained in Asia Minor, Strabo 
could have learned all the details of the triumph of Germanicus, 
since in 18 A. D., Germanicus himself came with a large following 
to the East, and traversed the majority of the Roman provinces as 
far as Armenia, the Euphrates, and Egypt. If Strabo was in Rome 
in 17, and especially in 18 A. D., in which year he at least retouched 
books iv and xii, why, in speaking of the reign of Maroboduus,' 
does he not allude to the ruin of his state and of his exile to Ravenna 
—events which also happened in 18 A. D. ?? 

Several noteworthy facts, on the other hand, oppose the theory 
that Strabo either visited, or dwelt in, Rome after 7 a.p. If he 
had lived in Italy during the last years of his life, and had there 
written his Geography, it seems that his work should show some 
knowledge of the events of that period. ‘Thus the emperor Tiberius 
is mentioned, but there is no allusion to his Germanic and Pan- 


t Strab. vii, p. 290 C. 


2'Tac. Ann. ii. 62. 63 The work of Linsmayer, Der Triumphzug des Ger- 
manicus (Munich, 1875), is known to me only through the ample but rather unfor- 
tunate summary of Schréter (Bemerkungen zu Strabo (Leipzig, 1887]). Of all the 
statements of this scholar, who attempts to show that Strabo was not present at 
the triumph of Germanicus, one alone seems to me worthy of attention. Strabo 
says that Thusnelda, wife of Arminius, with her son Thumelicus, was paraded 
by Germanicus in his triumph, and that Thumelicus was three years of age (vii, 
p- 292 C.). Thusnelda, however, had not yet given birth to Thumelicus in the 
spring of 15 A. D.(see Tac. Ann. i. 55, 58). Therefore on the day of the triumph 
of Germanicus (May 17, 17 A. D.; see Tac. Amn. ii. 41) Thumelicus was not more 
than two years old. It may be that Strabo erred because he was not present, 
but this argument, although it deserves mention, is of doubtful value. Through 
an easily understandable error, Strabo may have assigned to the boy the age 
which he had attained when he revised his work. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 415 


nonic expeditions of the years 4-11 A.D.* Further, there is no 
reference to the Gaetulian victories of Cossus (6 A. D.) and the wars 
of Tacfarinas, which commenced about 17 A. D.; and there is no 
use made of the map of Agrippa. There is no mention of the 
division of Italy into fourteen regions. In the description of 
Arabia and Libya there is no reference to the deeds of the learned 
King Juba. The fact is that the work on Arabia had been com- 
pleted before 2 B. c., when Strabo sent it to C. Caesar. In addition, 
Strabo takes no account of the description of Parthia which had 
been written by Isidorus of Charax, who had also accompanied 
C. Caesar to the East. It would have been easy for anyone so 
desiring to have seen this book at Rome about 18 A. D.?_ It is of no 
avail to object that the Geography of Strabo is merely an appendix 
and commentary to his preceding works, and that in this he men- 
tions only those events which were connected with what he had 
written before, since in every case where he was able to obtain 
information about recent events, he records them. This is shown, 
for example, by his mention of the triumph of Germanicus, and of 
the coming of Zeno to the throne of Armenia. With all the events 
which occurred in the East Strabo shows himself to be fully familiar; 
but, aside from this triumph of Germanicus and the death of King 
Juba (of whom the former came to Asia Minor in 18 A. D., and the 
latter was related to the courts of Pontus and Cappadocia), he 
makes no reference to the later events which refer to the West. If 
Strabo had been in Rome in 18 A. D., he would have corrected the 
passage in which he asserted that the Elbe had never been crossed 
by a Roman army, since at that time it had been crossed by Aéno- 
barbus, who owed his triumph to this fact. In like manner, he 
would not have let the statement stand that the burning of the 
temple of Ceres had occurred recently, since in 17 A.D. it had 
already been re-erected by Tiberius. Furthermore, if Strabo had 
been in Rome in 18 A. D., he could easily have obtained a list of 
the senatorial and imperial provinces of that period. He would 
not have contented himself with giving a list of the senatorial prov- 
inces as they formerly existed (é€v apyais), and would not have 


t Strab. iii, p. 156 C. 2 See Plin. N. H. vi. 141; ‘xxxii. ro. 


416 ANCIENT ITALY 


shown such a lack of knowledge of the imperial provinces, of which 
he merely says: ‘“‘[Caesar] dividing them now in one manner, now 
in another, and always adapting their administration to the present 
circumstances, etc.”’* Finally, if he had lived at Rome, instead of 
often confessing his ignorance of the boundaries which in his time 
were assigned to the various Roman provinces, excusing himself 
by the pretext that these boundaries varied with great frequency, 
he would have indicated the administrative divisions which were in 
force about 18 A.D. It has been suggested that Strabo purposely 
overlooked these data, because, as he says, he preferred to indicate 
the divisions formed by nature, rather than those made for admin- 
istrative purposes.? This, however, is irrelevant, since, wherever 
he was able, he indicated with much detail the administrative divi- 
sions of his time also. A conspicuous example and proof of this is 
his minute description of the political measures taken in Spain, 
and his statements regarding the administration of Egypt about 
20 B. C., and of Cappadocia at the time when it was still governed 
by kings. If Strabo had been in Rome in 18 A.D., and in the 
years following 7 B. c., he would certainly have had more than one 
occasion to indicate the condition of the empire, its military strength 
and its administrative organization. If such statements are either 
lacking, or else are antiquated and sporadic, this shows clearly 
enough that he was far from the capital, and had to make the most 
of the few facts that came to his notice. 

The above observations concerning the place where Strabo 
composed his Geography lead us to the conclusion that it was 
originally compiled and completed in a great political and literary 
center. The various occasions when Strabo visited Rome (at 
least three), and his long residence at Alexandria (at least five 
years), gave him the opportunity of consulting the many excellent 
works which he quotes so freely, and brought to his knowledge 

t Strab. xvii, p. 840 C. 

2 Strabo declares systematically that he follows the rérwyv gvcts (e. g.,. ii, 
pp. 119 C., 122 C.; vii, p. 289 C.; viii, p. 334 C.; xii, p. 563 C; xiii, p. 581 C.). 

3 This is not the place for discussing the extent to which Strabo had read 


these authors, and what sources he either really used or else knew indirectly. 
There exists no good work on this subject. The mere reading of the Geography, 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 417 


the most important of the political and administrative events of the 
period.* Aside from the few events above noted, the majority of 
which refer to the years either shortly before or shortly after 18 
A. D., and to the eastern provinces, the absence or scarcity of refer- 
ences to events of this late period, taken in connection with the other 
arguments recently advanced, warrant the belief that during the 
final twenty-five years of his life Strabo was away from Rome, and 
resided in some distant city of Asia Minor, possibly his native 
Amasia, where it was not possible for him to follow political events 
closely, particularly those which occurred in the West. What he 
says about the administration of Tarsus is in itself enough to make 
it appear probable that he dwelt in the East after 7 B. c., since he 
could have learned these particulars on the spot at the time when 
Athenodorus left Rome to devote himself to the administration of 
his own country—an event which certainly occurred in the final 
years of the reign of Augustus.” 

The falsity of the opinion of those who hold that the Geography 
was written at Rome? is shown by the extensive travels of Strabo. 
He boasts of the voyages which he made, and says they were no 
less extensive than those of his predecessors. He declares that he 
visited the entire inhabited world, from the shores of the Euxine 
to the borders of Ethiopia, and from Armenia as far as Populonia 


however, gives me the firm conviction that Strabo had read extensively the writings 
of such authors, and that he does not merely reproduce the text of a few sources, 
such as Apollodorus and Artemidorus. 

t The fact that the first edition of the Geography was written about 7 B.c., 
and that, where Strabo gives the list of the imperial provinces, he is ignorant of 
the measures which had been taken after 11 A. D., certainly leads to the conclusion 
that Strabo accomplished the first redaction of his text also when living far from 
Rome. 

2 See above, p. 399. 

3 The few arguments of a philological nature employed by Niese to show that 
the Geography was written at Rome, have been confuted by Habler (Hermes, XIX, 
pp. 235 ff.). Strabo says that véuerar 0” Z0vn Thy AcBinv Ta wreicTa Eyvwora: ov 
moAdny yap épodever Oat cup Balvec crparorédats 005’ ddAdrAoPUAS avdpdory ol 5’ erry wproc 
kal ddlyot wap’ Huds dgixvodvrar woppwhev kal ob miTa odde wdvra héyovs: (ii, p. 131 C.). 
These words were not composed by a man who wrote at Rome, nor by one writing in 
Amasia, or some other small and distant city of Asia Minor. Men of every country 
came to Rome, and certainly Africans did not come to Amasia. At Alexandria, on 
the other hand, some of the neighboring Libyans must now and then have been seen. 


418 ANCIENT ITALY 


in Etruria.t | That Strabo exaggerated somewhat in this regard, 
and that these voyages were not quite so extended as one might 
be led to believe, has been well brought out by Niese,? who, how- 
ever, does not draw the legitimate conclusions from his own obser- 
vations. The fact is that Strabo did very little traveling in the 
West and in Italy itself. As Niese rightly says, we have no reason 
to believe that he ever visited Sicily or southern Italy. Of 
Italy, Strabo seems merely to have known the road which leads 
from Brindisi to Rome, the road between Rome and Naples and 
Puteoli, and the coast of Etruria between Rome and Populonia.4 

With these facts in mind, it seems hardly possible that a geog- 
rapher, historian, and writer such as Strabo, who thought himself 
the follower and continuer of Polybius, Artemidorus, and Posi- 
donius, could have lived at Rome for any length of time and have 
there written his books, without embracing the opportunity of 
visiting the neighboring regions. A Greek philosopher who was 
on friendly terms with the most famous men in Roman political 
circles, as Niese holds Strabo to have been, would certainly have 
had the opportunity of accompanying his friends either to Gaul 
and Iberia, or to the military provinces of Germany and IIlyricum. 
It was in this manner that he visited the valley of the Nile, and, had 
the possibility been offered, he would certainly have availed him- 
self of the opportunity of becoming acquainted with Italy, and 
particularly with Magna Graecia and Sicily, and would have visited 
Greece, of which it does not seem that he saw anything except 
Corinth. 

Of far more importance were the travels of Strabo in the East. 
According to his own statements, he ascended the Nile as far as 
Syene, was present at Comana in Cappadocia,’ reached the banks 


t Strab. ii, p. 117 C. 2 Hermes, XIII, pp. 44 ff. 

3 Schréter (De Strabonis itineribus, Lipsiae, 1872) makes use of too subjective 
criteria, and certainly exaggerates the extent of the voyages of Strabo. 

4It is likewise strange that a*geographer who lived many years at Alexandria 
should never have sought to visit Libya. Strabo’s acquaintance with the coast 
extended merely as far as Cyrene, which he saw only from the sea (xvii, p. 837 C.), 
possibly on the occasion of a voyage from Alexandria direct to Puteoli (xvii,p. 793 C.). 
The date of this voyage cannot be determined. 

5 Strab. xii, p. 535 C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 419 


of the Pyramus in Cilicia, and visited Hierapolis in Phrygia,? Nysa 
in Caria,3 and Ephesus.4 An attentive reading of his works also 
brings the conviction that he was acquainted with a large portion 
of Pontus, and that he may have visited Sinope and Cyzicus in 
Bithynia, and have seen Nicaea in Cappadocia, traversed Cilicia 
from one end to the other, and very probably visited Tarsus and 
possibly Seleucia in Caria. In this last province, too, in addition 
to Nysa, he certainly visited Milasa, Alabanda, and Tralles, and it 
seems to me that he must have been acquainted with at least Syn- 
nada, Magnesia, and Smyrna. With the exception of the cities 
on the shore of the Euxine, I have limited myself to the mention 
either of the cities which Strabo expressly states that he visited, or 
of those either near or between those which he says that he saw, and 
the descriptions of which are to be found in the Geography. It is 
possible that to those mentioned above should be added Berytus 
in Syria.® 

From the above it is clear that Strabo traveled much more exten- 
sively in the East than in the West. The descriptions of Asiatic 
and other eastern places are much more accurate and authoritative 
than those of regions farther west, and seem written by a man who 
had obtained his knowledge through long-continued residence. It 
should be noted, however, that neither the eastern nor the western 
voyages of Strabo are such as one would expect from a man of 
unlimited means and time, who undertakes to travel for scientific 
purposes. With the exception of the rather minute descriptions 

I xii, p. 536C. 3 xiv, p. 650 C. 

2 xiii, p. 630 C. 4 xiv, p. 641 C. 

5 Strabo (ii, p. 117 C.) states that he had been in this region also. 

6 As in the case of Nicopolis (vii, p. 325 C.; x, p. 450C.), in speaking of 
Berytus (xvi, p. 756 C.), Strabo makes reference to the territory given to the city by 
Agrippa, who planted there a military colony in 14 B.c. A reference of the same 
nature is given for Patrae, which also was founded by Agrippa, and in the same 
year (viii, p. 388 C.; ix, p. 460C.). It is quite possible that Strabo derived these 
statements from literary sources. It should be noted, however, that both Nicopolis 
and Patrae were on the maritime route between Corinth and Brindisi, and that 
Berytus was on the route between Alexandria and the Gulf of Issus, where Strabo 
must have been, since he visited the banks of the Pyramus, and where the road 


began which ran through Cappadocia by way of Comana (where Strabo also was) 
to Amasia. 


420 ANCIENT ITALY 


of Lydia and Caria, the accounts of Strabo seem written, not by 
a person who was traveling on his own account and for scientific 
reasons, but by a man who seized every favorable occasion to study 
what circumstances and the pleasure of others gave him the oppor- 
tunity of knowing. It seems to me that Strabo, to use his own 
phrase, Tov zravdevtixdv Biov édcpevos,t was at the same time 
both instructor and politician, and that it was for the sake of others 
that he made his voyage to Rome and to Alexandria. His first 
visit to Rome was made in 44 B. C., the year of the death of Caesar; 
his second, in 29 B. c., when Augustus was at Corinth, on his way 
to Rome. Strabo had taken passage, at the time of this second 
visit, on a ship bound for Corinth, and the same ship was boarded 
by other ambassadors on their way to Augustus. The year, the 
place, and the other circumstances cause one to suspect that the 
journey was made for political purposes.? Strabo’s voyage to 
Egypt was made in the company of the governor himself, Aelius 
Gallus. And that he was instructor of eminent men may also be 
seen from the Geography, in which Strabo takes especial delight in 
enumerating all the famous professors who were born, or who 
taught, in the various cities of Asia Minor which he describes ;3 in 
which he records his teachers, such as Aristodemus the Younger of 
Nysa,+ Tyrannion,’ Xenocrates,® and Posidonius,? and his com- 
panion as a student, Boetius of Sidon;® and in which he also makes | 
mention of those who were teachers of individuals belonging to 
famous families, such as Aristodemus the Elder, who taught the 
sons of Pompey,? Athenodorus of Tarsus, friend of Strabo, and 
teacher and counselor of Augustus;'® Arius, who was likewise 
the friend of Augustus;?! Nestor, who taught Marcellus;'? and 


1 Strab. xiv, p. 670 C. 

2 These travels of Strabo may be compared with those of the rhetorician Pota- 
mon, and of the poet Crinagoras of Lesbos (known to our writer, xiii, p. 617 C.), 
who in 45 and 25 B.c. took part in the political embassy sent from Mytilene to 
Rome. See Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 62 ff., and in the 
Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy, 1889, p. 962; cf. Mommsen, ibid., p. 980. 

3 See the list in my article in Riv. di filol. class. (Turin), XV, p. 118, n. 8. 

4Strab. xiv, p. 650C. 7 vii, fr. 58, b. 1° xiv, pp. 674 C. ff.; xiv. p. 779 C. 

5 xii, p. 548 C. Szvi, ‘p: 757 C.. * xiv; p, 670 GC. 

6 xiv, p. 670 C. 9xiv. p.650C. 12 xiv, p. 674C. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 421 


Apollodorus of Pergamum, ms too, was a friend of the 
emperor." 

After reading this list, one aataratly as whether Strabo did not 
occupy a similar social position.2 This supposition is rendered 
even more probable by the fact that Strabo constantly asserts that 
his Geography is political, that it is useful for governmental pur- 
poses, and that it was written for rulers and those in high positions.3 
If this was the case, it is natural to think that he may have made his 
travels in company with, and at the expense of certain of these 
individuals; and it remains to determine who these may have 
been. Niese has sought to show that they were influential Romans 
such as Aelius Gallus. In an earlier article+ I attempted to show 
the falsity of this opinion, and that Strabo wrote from the point of 
view of a Greek, and in the interest of Greeks who probably be- 
longed to Asiatic dynasties. I concluded my observations by rather 
timidly conjecturing that the Geography was composed for Pytho- 


I xiii, p. 625 C. 

2 The expression used by Strabo in one of his prolegomena (ii, p. r1o C.), 
where he says that the geographer KeAever Te Tots tpoc.odcrv, also tends to show that 
he was a professor. 

& Eig. 4). Dp. o,1%,,23.€- 

4I have nothing to add to the observations made in my my article in Riv. 
di filol. class. (Turin), XV, pp. 99-122. It should be noted in this connec- 
tion that, in attempting to corroborate the opinions of Niese, Butzer (op. 
cit., p. 30) wrongly makes use of the passage kal rotrwy 6’ &ravoay abrovs 
[i. e., the barbarian peoples of Gaul] ‘Pwuatoe cal rv card rds Obvolas Kal 
pavtelas brevayvtiwy tots map’ huiv vouluos (iv, p. 198 C.), since in this and 
similar passages (cf. ii, p. 131 C.) the “we” means “we Greeks and Romans” 
(cf. Ados pev “Ivdols mpoojxor xwpoypdgpos dAdos 5é Aldioyiv, Aros be “EAAgor 
kal ‘Pwualos, i, p. 9 C.); i. e., “we civilized people,” in opposition to the 
barbarians. See, moreover, the final pages of book vi (pp. 287 C. ff.) and book 
xvii (p. 839 C.), where also the other monarchical states which were subject to 
Rome are mentioned as part of the empire. Strabo wrote from the point of view 
of a subject of Rome. He was no less under her control than was a subject of 
Herod or of Juba, and could therefore say, Tavrns 5¢ rijs cunrdons xdpas THs bard 
‘Pwualors } uev Bacireverar, Hy 5° Exovory abrol kahécavres érapxlay (xvii, p. 839 C ). 
In a short passage from the prolegomena of Strabo, P. Otto, Leipziger Studien, XI 
(sup. vol.), thinks to find a new argument to confirm the thesis of Niese. Had 
he made a careful examination of the passage in question (as is done in my above- 
quoted article) and especially of the words which follow it, he would not have so 
positively asserted that our geographer had merely the Romans in mind. 


422 ANCIENT ITALY 


doris, queen of Pontus. It is true that I had no direct evidence in 
support of this theory. Since then I have carefully re-examined 
the works of Strabo, and am persuaded that the many personal or 
characteristic allusions in his writings are connected either with his 
previous historical productions or with the history of his life.t This 
leads me again to take up the above-mentioned hypothesis, and to 
attempt, if not to prove it, at least to show its plausibility. 

Strabo, in a noteworthy passage, says of this Pythodoris that she 
was a “woman of great mental powers, and endowed with veri- 
table administrative capacity.”? He then gives a short history of 
her life, saying that she was the daughter of Pythodorus of Tralles. 
After her marriage to Polemon she ruled some years with her hus- 
band, and on his death succeeded him to the throne. Of the three 
children born from this union, the daughter married Cotys, a © 
Thracian ruler. Strabo mentions the death of this prince and the 
succession of his son,? and says that one of the sons of Pythodoris 
(Zenon) was recently made king of Greater Armenia (by Germani- 
cus in 18 A. D.), and that the other as a private individual assisted 
his mother in her government. Finally, we learn from Strabo that 
Pythodoris contracted a second marriage with Archelaus, the last 
king of Cappadocia, and after his death remained a widow. We 
also learn from this long passage that the Tibarenians and Chalde- 
ans, and also Pharnacia and Trapezus, were subject to Pythodoris, 
and that she ruled over other even more attractive provinces. In 
an earlier chapter also Strabo‘ alludes to the rule of Pythodoris 
over the Chaldeans, Trapezus, and Pharnacia; and still later he 
describes at length, and most minutely,’ her possessions Pharnacia 
and Cabires, which she called Sebaste, and where she located 
her royal seat. He also mentions her possessions Zelitis and 


t As Butzer (op. cit.) and others have noted, the reason that Strabo refers 
frequently to the revenues of the sacerdotal states—as, for example, Comana—is 
because on his mother’s side (from Dorilaus) he was descended from one of the 
priests of that temple. To the passages which he mentions should be added that 
in which Strabo tells the story of Cleon, the former ruler of Juliopolis in Phrygia, 
who died a priest of Comana (xii, p. 574 C.). 

2 Strab. xii, p. 555 C. 

3 For this ruler see Mommsen, Eph. epigr., II, pp. 254 ff. 

4 Strab. xi, p. 499 C. 5 xii, pp. 556 C. ff. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 423 


Megalopolis,? and after these descriptions repeats a third and 
fourth time that it was to Pythodoris that these various places 
belonged.? In still another passage Strabo recalls the fact that 
Pythodorus once visited Tralles, and while in that city acquired so 
much wealth that he was able to pay the fine of two thousand 
talents inflicted by Caesar, who wished to punish him for his friend- 
ship toward Pompey. This, however, did not prevent his leaving 
great riches to his sons. Strabo then adds: “his daughter is Pytho- 
doris, the present queen, of whom we have spoken before.”’ 

In the entire Geography no other ruler is mentioned so fre- 
quently as Pythodoris. With the exception of Augustus, Tiberius, 
and the governors of Egypt, Strabo compliments and eulogizes her 
alone. The states belonging to this princess, which were near 
Amasia, and which Strabo possibly saw in person, are described 
with no less care than are Pontus, Cappadocia, Lydia, Phrygia, and 
Caria—the regions where Strabo lived and which he knew best. 
The hypothesis that the Geography was written in the interests of 
Pythodoris and her family therefore deserves to be at least set forth 
and discussed. 

It is not difficult to discover the occasions when Strabo could 
have been near this princess. In his youth he studied at Nysa 
(about 50 B.c.). Thus he was there at the time that Pythodorus 
of Nysa was living at near-by Tralles, where at about this period he 
was punished by Caesar (between 48 and 46 B.c.). He had cer- 
tainly occasion, therefore, to know the father of the future queen of 
Pontus. On the other hand, Pythodoris, who, as Mommsen has 
shown,‘ was the daughter of Pythodorus and Antonia (the daughter 
of Antony the triumvir and Antonia), shortly after 14 B. c. married 
the Polemon who was the king of Pontus up to 36 B. c., and who 
in 33 B. Cc. became king of Lesser Armenia, and in 14 B.c. of the 
Bosphorus. Polemon and Pythodoris were therefore masters of 
Pontus, the region where Amasia was situated, and also of Megalo- 


1 xii, p. 559 C. 2 xii, pp. 559, 560 C. 
3 xiv, p. 648C. For the story of Pythodoris and Polemon, see the clever 
observations of Mommsen, Eph. epigr., I, pp. 270 ff.; cf. CIA, II, no. 547. 


+See Mommsen, Joc. cit., I, pp. 254 ff. 


424 ANCIENT ITALY 


polis and Zela, which bordered on Strabo’s native country. It may, 
of course, be merely accidental that after his description of the 
possessions of Pythodoris, Strabo records the history of his own 
family. ‘There must, however, be some reason for the fact that in 
speaking of Cabires, where Pythodoris fixed her royal seat, he 
observes that this was one hundred and fifty stades, or less than 
twenty miles, distant from Amasia.? It seems to me probable 
that Amasia also was for a time subject to these rulers. It did not 
become a province until 7 B. c., the year following that of the death 
of Polemon.? 

Whatever may be the value of the above conjecture, it is at least 
certain that Strabo belonged, especially on his mother’s side, to an 
illustrious family which had occupied the highest offices in the realm 
of Pythodoris. His maternal grandfather, Dorilaus, was priest 
of Pontic Comana at the time of Mithridates the Great, which 

t Strab. xii, p. 556 C. 

2 The fact that also Gangra (Germanicopolis) and Andrapa (Neoclaudiopolis) 
became provincial regions in the same year as Amasia (7 B. c.; see Head, p. 433) 
led Mommsen (Rém. Gesch., V, p. 298) to suppose that Amasia too belonged to 
Diotarus Philadelphus, king of Paphlagonia, who had his residence at Gangra 
(Strab. xii, p. 622 C.). This is not impossible; but it is more probable that Amasia 
which belonged to Pontus proper (from which Strabo excludes Paphlagonia, 
Pp. 541, 562 C.), was granted to Polemon. ‘This hypothesis receives additional 
support from an examination of the passage where Strabo, in speaking of the fort- 
ress of Sagillum, situated to the west of Amasia, between it and Amisus, relates the 
visit of Arsaces, and describes how he was besieged by the sons of Pharnaces, and 
how he was taken prisoner by the kings Polemon and Lycomedes. After narrating 
the disposition which Pompey made of the Phazemonitis, Strabo concludes; ol 
5’ torepov Baciredor, cal ravrnv Evemayv (xii, p. 561 C.); and then goes on to 
speak of Amasia, saying that 560) xal # ‘Apudoea Bacdedor (ibid.). The King 
Lycomedes here mentioned is certainly the priest of Pontic Comana who was 
invested with this office by Caesar in 47 B. c. (see Bell. Alex. 66), and who is men- 
tioned shortly before by Strabo; and the Polemon is the king of Pontus. This 
event would seem to have taken place between the time when Pontus was still in 
the hands of the sons of Pharnaces (one of whom, Darius, was recognized by 
Antony), and when Polemon had already been nominated king of a portion of 
Cilicia, and the time when Polemon had already become king of Pontus; or between 
39 and 36 B.c. (see App. Bell. civ. v. 75; Dio xlix. 25). It seems to me that the 
words of Strabo émitpépaytos oddevds Tv iyyeudvwv refer also to the sons of 
Mithridates, although Meyer holds a contrary opinion (Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. 
Kénigreichs Pontos (Leipzig, 1879], p. 109, n. 1; cf. Otto, op. cit., p. 185, fr. 211). 
However that may be, there is no doubt as to the identification of this Polemon as 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 425 


means that he occupied the office next to that of king.t His 
maternal uncle, Moaphernes, had been governor of Colchis,? and 
other relatives of his, such as his paternal grandfather and his 
uncles Tibius and Theophilus, had been powerful leaders, even 
at the time of Mithridates.s Even if the family of Strabo had 
become of less importance, nevertheless both his calling and his 
literary and scientific education would surely have enabled him to 
approach the rulers of his own and of the neighboring states. 

If we admit that Strabo came in contact with Archelaus, the 
second husband of Pythodoris, we may explain why he is always 
called Strabo ‘“‘the Cappadocian” by Josephus Flavius,* and why 


the king of Pontus. It need cause no surprise that, on the death of Polemon, 
Amasia should have become a Roman province, although the rest of Pontus re- 
mained in the possession of Pythodoris. Amasia occupied a strong position from 
a strategical point of view, since it dominated the valley and the course of the Isis, 
and its possession was therefore of importance to the Romans. On the other hand, 
after the battle of Actium had put an end to the civil wars, the Romans seized every 
propitious occasion for bringing under their sway the possessions of any subject 
king who happened to die. In this manner Lycaonia (with Iconium) became 
part of a Roman province, and did not fall to the lot of the heirs, although its king, 
Polemon, kept it till the year of his death (see App. Joc. cit.; Strab. xii, p. 568 C.). 
The fact that Gangra and Andrapa in Paphlagonia were incorporated in the prov- 
ince in the same year as Amasia does not mean that all three places were formerly 
subject to one and the same prince. Something similar to the events of 18 A. D. 
may have occurred, when Germanicus had to provide at the same time for the 
inheritance of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, of Antiochus, prince of Commagene 
and of Philopater, ruler over a portion of Cilicia, who died about the same time 
(see Tac. Ann. ii. 42). 

t Strab. x, p. 477C.; xiii, p. §57C.; Bell. Alex. 66. 

2 Strab. xi, p. 499 C. 3 Strab. xii, pp. 557 C. ff. 

4 It may be, of course (see Niese, Rhein. Mus., XX XVIII, p. 582, n. 1), that the 
term was applied to Strabo because the inhabitants of the Cappadocian Pontus were 
called simply Cappadocians. Niese quotes especially the author of Bell. Alex. 64, 
where Pontic Comana is called “in Cappadocia.”’ To this passage may be added 
that of Dio xxxvi, 13, where, in regard to Comana, it is said that there were two 
cities of that name in Cappadocia, one belonging to Cataonia, and the other to 
Pontus. Also Strabo, who distinguishes Great Cappadocia from Pentus, speaks of 
(ra)... . Kawradéxwv rdv mpis r@ ffs wéxpe Kodxldos (xii, p. 541 C.) and 
rasa } nolov rod “AXvos Karmadoxla boy wapatelvee 7H Iapdayovia (pass zG.): 
It may be, too, that the name was given to Strabo on account of his residence in 
Cappadocia. Thus, to give a single example of a rather common occurrence, 
Posidonius of Apamea was called “the Rhodian” on account of his sojourn on 
the island of Rhodes. 


426 ANCIENT ITALY 


he shows himself so well informed concerning this region and its 
administration; and we also understand better the passages in 
which he speaks of Herod of Idumea and his family, and where he 
alludes to the family of Eurycles. The former was the father of 
the Alexander who married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus; 
the latter was the principal cause of the death of this Alexander. 
It may be that these allusions were merely due to the fact that 
Strabo mentioned these characters in his History. Since, how- 
ever, Strabo, who did not know of the writings of Juba, and who 
describes so imperfectly the realm of this king, speaks of his death 
as having occurred recently, it may be that this was due to the 
relations which existed between Juba and the court of Pythodoris. 
Juba had first married Cleopatra, daughter of Antony the tri- 
umvir and half-sister of Antonia, the mother of Pythodoris. Later 
he contracted a second marriage with Glaphyra, daughter of 
Archelaus and widow of Alexander.’ Finally, if we grant that 
Strabo had relations with Pythodoris and her second husband, 
we find a motive for the fact that, although he makes mention of 
the siege of Artagira and of Adon, he neither here nor elsewhere 
speaks of C. Caesar, the son of Agrippa,who was wounded by Adon.’ 
Archelaus paid little attention to Tiberius during the time when 
Tiberius was banished to Rhodes, but was extremely anxious to 
make friends with his enemy, C. Caesar, when the latter visited 
the East. After Tiberius succeeded Augustus, he took vengeance 
by summoning Archelaus to Rome and bringing him to trial. As 
a result of this trial, and of his other misfortunes, the Cappado- 
cian king finally perished. 

The great respect shown by Strabo for Augustus and for Rome, 

tSee Miiller, F. H. G., III, p. 466; Mommsen in Eph. epigr., I, -p. 276; 
cf. CIA, II, 549. 

2 See above, p. 381. 

3 See Tac. Ann. ii. 42; Dio lvii. 17. ‘Those who wish to base on the descrip- 
tion of the mausoleum of Augustus (died 14 A. D.), and on that of the triumph of 
Germanicus (17 A.D.), the conclusion that Strabo was in Rome at that time, 
might also conjecture that Strabo had accompanied King Archelaus to Rome 
before 17 A. D., the year when Archelaus died. It is useless, however, to indulge 


in such pure guesswork. We have already seen that Strabo could have become 
informed concerning these events, even though he had remained in Asia Minor. 


STRABO’S HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 427 


and which he also manifested for Tiberius, agrees perfectly with 
the condition in which we have supposed that our writer found 
himself. The attitude of the subject kings was most obsequious 
toward Rome, and Pythodoris owed her realm as much to Augustus 
as to Polemon. Nicolaus of Damascus, the historian of Herod, 
was also the historian of Caesar. 

These conjectures concerning the relations which existed 
between Strabo and the kings of Pontus are of necessity rather 
problematical. The other conclusions which I have set forth 
both here and elsewhere are much less uncertain and are, I think, 
worthy of the closest attention. The Geography, as probably also 
the historical works, was not written at the instigation of Roman 
friends and in their interest, but rather from the point of view of 
a Greek of -Asia Minor. It was not necessarily composed at 
Rome for the first time, and it is hardly possible that it was revised 
there twenty-five years later. It is much more probable that it 
was composed from material collected in the two great centers of 
the civilized world, Alexandria and Rome, and that it was both 
written and worked over in some distant region of Asia Minor. 
For this reason the writings of Strabo were unknown to the Roman 
authors, and particularly to Pliny, who generally showed himself 
an overzealous reader and compiler of the numerous Greek and 
Latin works of his time, good, bad, and indifferent. On the 
other hand, the writings of Strabo were read and praised by 
Josephus Flavius, a contemporary of Pliny and a purely Asiatic 
historian. 

Niese, in composing his sketch of Strabo, evidently had in mind 
the figure of Polybius, of whom Strabo was a follower. It seems 
to me that an even closer resemblance to the character of Strabo 
is found in the person of another writer of the same period and 
age, Nicolaus of Damascus, the teacher of the sons of Antony 
and Cleopatra. This Nicolaus was the political counselor of 
Herod of Judea, and accompanied this ruler on his Asiatic travels 
as far as the Pontus, and to Rome, and in his interests, and those 
of his son Archelaus, several times filled the office of ambassador 
to Augustus. Of the other contemporaneous historians Strabo 


428 ANCIENT ITALY 


merely mentions the names, without quoting their writings;' or 
else he either entirely overlooks them, or does not allude to their 
scientific activity. In many places in his Geography, on the 
other hand, he follows closely the writings of Nicolaus of Damas- 
cus,3 and both quotes him as authority and gives his words, even 
in regard to events of which he himself was to some extent a wit- 
ness.4 From these considerations it seems quite possible that 
between these two men, who followed the same calling, and who 
seem to have occupied a similar social and political position, there 
may also have existed personal relations. 

1 E. g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus (xii, p. 656 C.). 

2 Such as King Juba, Diodorus Siculus, Isidorus, and others. 

3 See Flav. Jos. Ant. Iud. xiv. 6. 4; cf. xiii. 12. 6; xiv. 4. 3. 

4 Strab. xv, p. 719 C. 


APPENDIX 


I cannot resist the temptation of setting forth two rather bold conjectures 
concerning the life of Strabo. Even daring conjecture, if not presented in a 
false light, may be of use in the formation of more fortunate, or less uncertain, 
conclusions. 

I. I have above (p. 410) alluded to the motives which led the youthful 
Strabo to study at Nysa in Caria, and remarked that possibly this was due to 
the numerous relations which existed between the Roman province of Asia 
and the Pontus, even at the time of Mithridates, who invaded Bithynia and 
this region. It is worthy of note that both Polemon and Pythodoris, the 
future rulers of Pontus, were born in this province; that Diodorus of Adramyt- 
tium in Mysia died at Amasia;' that the neighboring Ephesians, for com- 
mercial reasons, pushed to the very center of Cappadocia; and that, in general, 
their city was the leading emporium for the commerce with the interior of the 
Orient, especially for Asia to the west of the Taurus.? Of great importance 
in this connection is the following circumstance: When, in 88 B. c., Mithri- 
dates ordered the killing of all the Roman citizens in Asia, the inhabitants of 
Tralles near Nysa did not themselves spill any Roman blood, but employed 
for this purpose a captain whom both Appian? and Dio* call Theophilus of 
Paphlagonia. This individual, according to all probability, was a partisan of 
Mithridates, and together with him had invaded the Roman territory. Fur- 
thermore, all of the ancestors mentioned by Strabo are presented by him as in 
the army, and as officers under Mithridates. These are Dorilaus the Younger 
and Moaphernes, and also his paternal grandfather (Aeniates ?, p. 410, note 3), 
his cousin Tibias, and Theophilus, who was the son of Tibius, and therefore 
a cousin of Strabo’s father. Mithridates caused both Tibius and Theophilus 
to be put to death,’ and as a result Strabo’s grandfather betrayed the king and 
went over to Lucullus and the Romans (after 73 B.c.). It seems quite possible 
that this Theophilus was the same person as the Theophilus who was hired 
by the inhabitants of Tralles. The only objection is that the individual 
recorded by Appian and Dio is said to have come from Paphlagonia, and 
not from Pontus; and this is easily explained. According to Strabo, the 
inhabitants of both banks of the Halys, in the lower part of its course, belonged 
to a single ethnographical stem, and were, in the last analysis, Cappadocians. 
For this reason the same proper names were in use in the various regions of 
both eastern Paphlagonia and western Pontus. Among these Strabo mentions 
that of Tibius,° which was also the name of the father of his uncle Theophilus; 


t Strab. xiv, p. 614 C. 4¥Fr. ror. 
2 Strab. xii, pp. 540, 577 C.; xiv, pp. 641, 663 C. S$ Strab. xu, p. §s7 C. 
3 Bell. Mithr. 23. 6x3, p..553°Cx 


429 


430 ANCIENT ITALY 


and it is not at all surprising that Theophilus of Tralles, although really from 
Pontus, should have been called a Paphlagonian, or that Strabo should have 
had relatives even in the region beyond the Halys. The author of the Bellum 
Alexandrinum 66, says that Lycomedes, who was descended from the kings of 
Cappadocia, and who was made priest of Comana by Caesar, was a Bithynian, 
and the same author places the Comana of Pontus in Cappadocia. If the 
same Theophilus is referred to in both of these instances, we understand why 
Strabo or his family should have established themselves at the gates of a city 
where a member of the family was holding a high office. 

II. In two important chapters Strabo" boasts that among his ancestors 
were Dorilaus the general and Dorilaus the Younger, nephew of the general 
and friend of the great Mithridates, and known to those writing on the wars of 
Mithridates.? Cicero, in his oration in defense of King Diotarus, says: 
“‘corpora sua pro salute regum suorum hi legati tibi regii tradunt, Hieras et 
Blesaminus et Antigonus tibi nobisque omnibus iam diu noti, eademque fide 
et virtute praeditus Dorylaus, qui nuper cum Hiera legatus est ad te missus 
cum regum amicissimi tum tibi etiam ut spero probati.”3 Was this Dorilaus 
a descendant of those already mentioned, and therefore a distant relative of 
our geographer? The name is not common enough to make an accidental 
resemblance probable. In confirmation of this hypothesis it may be noted 
that, according to Strabo, the Gallic Trocmi held a part of Pontus,+ and 
that a portion of the region situated between Amisus and Amasia had been 
granted to Amasus, but that Pompey gave it to Diotarus xa@dwep kal ra 
wept Papvaxtay kat rhv Tpamefovolay wéxpt Kodrxldos Kal rijs puxpas * Appevias, 5 
Immediately following this comes the statement that Diotarus took the 
name of king and also the paternal tetrarchy over the Gallic Tolistobogi. 
This shows that our Diotarus is the one in question, and that he ruled, if - 
not over Amasia, at least over the neighboring regions. We should thus have 
an explanation of the fact that a descendant of Dorilaus had relations with 
the king and tetrarch of Galatia. 

™x, p. 477C.; xii, p. 557 C. 

2 Cf. App. Bell. Mithr. 17, 49; Plut. Sull. 20; Luc. 17; Memn., n. 33, in F. 
Ls. Gaps 02; 

3 Cic. Pro Detot. 41; 45 B.C. 

4 Strab. xii, p. 547 C. 

5 xii, p. 567 C. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Acerrae, possible Umbrian origin of, 
174 f. 

Aeneas, myth of localized in Italy, 186; 
at Rome, 236 

Aénobarbus, crossing of Elbe by, 381 

Agathocles, 247, 290f., pretended ex- 
pedition against Poiwlkn, chap. xiv; 
similarity to expedition against Her- 
bita, 160 f.; Adriatic policy of, 291 

Ageladas, statue by at Delphi, 34, n. 1 

Agrarian laws, pretended agitation 
against in fifth century, 279 

Agrigentum, rival of Syracuse, 29 

Agrippa, map of, 385 f.; not used by 
Strabo, 385; portico of not mentioned 
by Strabo, 393 f. 

Agyrium, coins from, 125 

Alexander of Epirus, expedition of to 
Italy, chap. viii; uncertainty of in- 
formation concerning, 99; confused 
with Archidamus of Sparta, 100; 
real purpose, 102 ff., 109; failure to 
form state in Apulia, 104; plan to 
secure all of southern Italy, 105; de- 
feat of Samnites, 106; march to Pan- 
dosia, 107; death, 108; unimportant 
results, I10 

Alexandria, 230; date of Strabo’s visit, 
412 

Alipha, known only from Campanian 
coin, 164; endurance of native ele- 
ment in population, 177 

Alliba, known only from Campanian 
coin, 164 

Alybas, 51 

Amasia, 407, 410; probably subject to 
Pythodoris, 424 

Aminaeans, location of in Italy, 315, n. 5 

Amyris, of Siris, sent to Delphi, 79 

Anna Perenna, 248 f., 341, n. I 

Apollo, introduction of cult to Rome, 337 

Appian, error in concerning the Bellum 
Perusinum, chap. xxiv 

Archaic, head, possibly from Temple of 
the Sirens, 213f.; inscription from 
Sardinia, 374 ff. 

Archelaus, 426 


Archidamus of Sparta, 349; confused 
with Alexander of Epirus, 100 


Archilochus, visit to Siris, 74 

Archons at Naples, 325 f. 

Ardea, 274 

Argives, 239, n. 3 

Armenians, called Parthians by mistake, 


390f., 397; date of mention by 
Strabo, 391 f. 

Arno, 364 

Assinaria, festival of, 151 

Assinarus, defeat of Athenians at, chap. 
xiii; same as modern Tellaro or 
ancient Helorus, 149 ff., 155, 155, n. 2 

Astylus, 43 f. 

Asylum, right of, 273; Greek institution, 
263; connected with tribunate, 263 f. 

Athena, cult of at Naples shown by 
coins, 218; temple of on Sorrentine 
peninsula, 222 f.; cult substituted for 
that of Sirens 230; maritime character 
223, 229; cult of at Syracuse, 229 

Athena Siciliana, cult of, 217 ff.; due to 
influence of Syracuse, 222; connected 
with cult of Athena on Sorrentine 
peninsula, 228 

Athenaeum of Punta della Campanella, 
247 .i1.55222 

Athenians, defeat of at Assinarus, chap. 
xiii 

Athenodorus, mention of by Strabo 
later addition, 399 

Atiddaru, equivalent to Assinarus, 155 


Augustus, games in honor of at Naples, 
394 f.; visit to Samos, 412 


Ausonia, chap. i; extension of name, 8; 
region bounded by Apennines, 10 

Ausonians, chap. i; origin of, 12; name 
preserved in modern names of rivers, 
2, 6, 7» 24 


Baton, 382 
Beneventum, in Ausonia, chap. i 
Boreontini, division of Samnites, 5, 6 


Brindisi, attacked by Alexander, 102; 
rival of Tarentum, 102 


433 


434 


Bruttium, condition at time of Alexan- 
der, 105 


Buildings, styles of at Rome, 321 


Cacus, 338 

Cacyparis, same as Cassabile, 148 

Caere, in Ausonia, 9 

Caesar, C., silence of Strabo concerning, 
381, 407, 426 

Calchus, legend of in Cornelius Gallus, 
168; not same as Calchas, 168; 
probably allusion to Daunians of 
Campania, 170 

Cales, in Ausonian territory, chap. i 

Caltagirone, discovery of Greek relief at, 
131 ff.; situation of, 134 — 

Camillus, L. Furius, victories over Gauls 
353 f. 

Campania, otherwise unknown cities 
shown by coins, 164; inferior develop- 
ment of southern portion even today, 
179; importance of influence on Rome 
341 f.; unit of measure same as at 
Rome, 316 

Campanian elements in Roman history, 
chap. xxi 

Cappadocia, description of in Strabo, 
398 f. 

Capri, exchanged for Ischia by Augus- 
tus, 210 

Carthage, 290, n. 2; commercial rela- 
tions with Italy, 202 f. 

Casmenae, secession to, 246 

Cassius, Sp., 258f., 275 ff.; dedication 
by of temple of Ceres, 245; condem- 
nation of, 253; consul, 258 f.; tribune 
of plebs, 258 f.; treaty of with Latins, 
ars ft: 

Castle of Ischia, site of fortress of Hiero, 
194 ff.; strategic importance of, 194; 
same as Castrum Gironis, 195 f. 

Castor and Pollux, 253, 322f.; cult of 
aristocratic origin, 257 

Castrum Gironis, same as Castle of 
Ischia, 195 f. 

Catana, 29 

Cato, 307 

Cavalry, Roman, borrowed from Greeks, 
322, n. 3; late introduction of, 324 

Censors, institution of probably bor- 
rowed, 327; in Sicily, 317, n. 1 

Cephalus, myth of, 252 


ANCIENT ITALY 


Ceres, 272; and Roman secessions, 
245 ff., 252; protecting goddess of 
plebs, 245, 257, 273, 309; location 
of temple, 246; cult introduced from 
Sicily, 250f.; rival to that of Castor 
and Pollux, 257; burning of temple 
in 31 B. C., called “recent” by Strabo, 
384; temple of in Alexandria, 412 

Cestius Macedonicus, 367 

Chalcidian ware, possibly derived from 
Ischia, 188 

Chaones, of Epirus, 12; migration to 
Italy, 71 

Charondas, 331 f. 

Chones, 2, 5, 13; earliest inhabitants of 
Siritis, 70 f. 

Cimbri, 395 f. 

Cincinnatus, L. Quinctius, 282 f. 

Circe, and Calchus, 168 ff. 

Claudius, Appius, censorship of, 292, 
235, Nn) I 

Clay industry, importance of to Ischia, 
187 

Cleonymus, expedition of to Italy, in 
Livy, gof.; in Diodorus, 93 f. 


_ Codes, early, 332 ff. 
. Coinage, imitation by Rome of Cam- 


panian, 317 f. 
Colophon, 73 f. 
Column, ancient, near river Tellaro, 
151 f.; excavations at, 156, n. 4 
Copper, importance of in Italy in early 
times, 318 f. 
Corcyra, seized by Cleonymus, 94 
Coriolanus, 278, 281; improbability of 
information concerning, 281 f. 
Cramones, division of Samnites, 5 f. 
Croton, 4, 30 
Cults, Greek, introduction to Rome, 256, 


330 ff. 
Cumae, 269f.; first Greek colony on 
mainland, 182 


Customs, various Italiot at Rome, 320 f. 


Daedalus, 171, n. I 

Damasus, of Siris, 77 

Damophilus, 251, 272 

Dante, mention in of Arno, 364f.; of 
Porta Sole at Perugia, 369 


Daunians of Campania, chap. xv;_men- 
tioned by Polybius, 163; allied with 


INDEX 


Etruscans, 165 f.; of Iapygian de- 
scent, 107; found early in Latium, 
167; location of, 170f.; traces of in 
valley of Sarno, 178 f. 

Demaratus, legend of connected with 
Rome, 241, 308 

Demarchs, at Naples, 325 f. 

Demeter, cult at Gela, 243 f.; at Syra- 
cuse, 247; associated with Dionysus, 
250, 314 

Diana, introduction of cult at Rome, 
336, n. 3 

Dio, account in of burning of Perugia, 
367 

Diodorus, trustworthiness of, 259 

Diomede, 5 

Dionysius I, expedition of as far as 
Corsica, 268, 293; Adriatic policy, 
293, 298 f.; alliance with Gauls, 
294 f., 298 

Dionysus, associated with Demeter, 250, 
314 

Diotarus, 430 

Dis, introduction of cult to Rome, 337 

Domitia Calliste, inscription of,. 217, 
227 

Dorians, difference between Doric and 
Ionic systems of colonization, 120; 
influence of on Etruscan architecture, 
270 

Dorilaus, 430 

Drusus, Germanic expeditions, 395 f. 

Ducetius, 284, n. 2; plan to found rival 
empire to Syracuse, 127 


Echetla, probably ineastern Heraeans, 
136):1.72 

Education, lack of provision for at 
Rome in early times, 134 f.; supe- 
riority of Greeks in, 334 f.; compul- 
sory at Thurii, 335 

‘Hyeuwv, use of word by Strabo, 388 

Elba, Syracusan fleet at, 220; mines of, 
203, 1-52 

Elbe, crossed by Romans, 381f., 387; 
not crossed by Drusus, 396 

Elymians, same as Sicani, 111; of Aryan 
descent, 115 

Enna, seat of cult of Demeter, 251, n. 4 

Ennius, 340 f. 

Epidius, legend of, 49 

Ergetium, coins probably from, 117 f.; 


435 


exact location uncertain, 118 f.; prob- 
ably near Laestrygonii Campi, 119 

Erineus, same as Fiume di Noto, 149 ff. 

Epvé, form of the same name as ’Epvxn, 
112 

Eryce, form of same name as Eryx, 
112f.; near lake of the Palici, 137 

Eryx=Verruca(?), chap. ix; Phoeni- 
cian and Libyan elements in popula- 
tion, II5 

Etruscans, 287; invasions of, 19, 34, 
165 f., 176; allied with Umbrians and 
Daunians, 165 f.; aided by Hiero, 
234; enemies of Syracuse, 268; Dorian 
influence on architecture of, 270; 
conquest of Pisa, 356 f. 

Euboeans, presence of in Siritis, 76 

Eurycles, 396 

Euthymus, legend of, chap. iii, 39 ff.; 
statue of at Olympia, 40 

Excavations, important field for in 
Latium, 308, 340; on Sorrentine 
peninsula, 232 


Factory, Phocaean at Pisa, 357 f. 
Fasti, late compilation of, 277 


Fenser, 173 f., 176; probable location 
of, 174; endurance of native element 
in population, 177 

Fleet, supposed Greek of 349 B.C., 
chap. xxli; probably Phocaean mer- 
cenaries, 352 ff. 

Fortress, of Hiero, on Ischia, 190 ff.; 
probably located at Castle of Ischia, 
194 ff. 

Forum, early relations with Greece 
shown by recent excavations in, 344 

Frontier, of Italy, before Sulla, 364 f. 


Galarina, location of, 142f.; near Mor- 
gantina, 143 f.; possibly at S. Mauro, 
144 

Gallus, Aelius, allusion to Arabian ex- 
pedition of in Strabo, 387; voyage of 
Strabo with, 403, 411 

Games, quinquennial, institution of at 
Naples, 394 f. 

Garganus, Mount, 5, 6; isolated posi- 
tion of, 172 

Gauls, accounts of taking of Rome by, 
292 ff., 353 f.; accounts preserved by 
Greek historians, 293; supposed 
alliance of with Dionysius I, 294 f. 
297 f. 


436 


Gela, 270; Greek relief of S. Mauro 
derived from, 134; situated between 
Sicani and Siculi, 138; secession 
from, 243 f. 

Gelo, 42, 254f.; quells secession at 
Syracuse, 246; tomb of, 271, n. 1; 
resemblance of to Publicola, 285, n. 2 

Genua, an Italic name, 114 

Geography, Historical, of Strabo, 379 ff.; 
probably written before 5 B. C., 381 ff., 
385; retouched later, 382 f., 389, 405; 
age of Strabo when written, 386 

Geomori, 246 f.; resemblance of seces- 
sion to that of plebs, 247 

Germanicus, account of triumph of 
added later by Strabo, 382; arrival 
of in Asia Minor, 407 f., 414 

Gladiators, possibly introduced to Rome 
from Campania, 324 f. 

Gold, never found on Ischia, 183 ff.; 
in Italy, 318 f.; little in early times, 
318 1; use of at (Rome,;-320,.n: st. 

Grain, Sicilian, connected with Roman 
secessions, 253f.; caused introduc- 
tion of cult of Ceres and tribunate, 
273; connected with pretended agrari- 
an agitation of fifth century, 279; 
Campanian, dependence of Rome 
upon, 308 f. 

Greece, influence of on civilization of 
Rome, 304 ff. 


Helorus, another name for Assinarus 
153f.; also called Herbessus, 154; 
modern Laufi, 154 

Hera, associated with Vulcan at Perugia, 
367 f.; location of temple, 369 

Heraclea, founding of, 67 

Heracles, myth of, localized in Italy, 
186; at Rome, 236, 338 f. 

Heraclides, 324 

Heraean Mountains, reasons for ex- 
pecting traces of antiquities among, 
132 

Heraeans, mentioned in inscription from 
Sardinia, 371 ff.; probably an asso- 
ciation of dramatic actors, 373 

Heraeum, in Sardinia, 371 ff. 

Hercules, see Heracles 

Hiero, 29; presence of on Ischia, 183, 
Nn. I, 190, 220; location of fortress of, 
190 ff. 

Hipponium, 31; sacred grove near, 43 


ANCIENT ITALY 


Hyperboreans, gave rise to word “abo- 
rigines,”’ 299 

Hyria, in Campania known only from 
coins, 164, 172, 176; name character- 
istic of Iapygian race, 171 f.; regions 
where found, 171 f.; Campanian city 
possibly Daunian, 172f.; location, 
174; endurance of ‘native element in 
population, 177 


Iapygians, invasions of, 2, 7, 8, 19 

Imhoof-Blumer, observations of on coins 
of Ergetium, 121 

Inscription, Greek from Ischia, 190 f.; 
later than time of Hiero, 194; Latin 
from Naples mentioning Athena 
Siciliana, 217; Greek from Sardinia, 
371 ff.; archaic from Sardinia, 374 ff. 

Ionians, difference between Doric and 
Ionic systems of colonization, 120 

Ischia, early history of, chap. xvi; site of 
first Greek factory in Italy, 181; 
fertility of, 183 ff.; gold mines prob- 
ably error, 183; importance of clay 
industry, 186 ff.; strategic importance 
189 f.; volcanic activity, 199 f.; re- 
lations with Africa, 201f.; and 
Naples at time of Sulla, 205 ff.; 
probably in possession of Naples till 
82 B.C., 206f., exchanged for Capri 
by Augustus, 210 


Islands of the Sirens, 222; termed li 
Galli, 215 


Italia, extension of name, 15, n. 1, 17; 
different meanings of word, 328 


Italiot civilization, reason for decay, 
109 f., 339; influence of on Rome, 
340, chap, xxi; elements of in Roman 
history, 340, chap. xxi 

Italus, leader of Oenotrians, 13 f. 

Italy, frontier of before Sulla, 364 


Juba, death of in Strabo, 383, 404, 426; 
mention later addition, 404 f.; con- 
nection with court of Pythodoris, 426 

Juno, Argive, on Campanian coins, 173} 
temple of, near Paestum, 173; intro- 
duction of cult to Latium, 336, n. 3 


Jupiter, connected with Ceres and tri- 
bunate, 264 


Kaddcxvpro, 246, n. 3, 255, 0. 4 


Lacco, early remains at, 196 f. 
Lamato, 53 


INDEX 


Laterni, 6 

Latins, treaty of, with Sp. Cassius, 
ame its 

Latium, part of Opician territory, 11; 
important field for excavations, 308, 
340; dependence upon Etruria and 
Campania for agricultural supplies, 
308; supposed Greek pirates off 
coast of, chap. xxii 

Leontini, 29 

Leucothea, cult of near Naples, 231 

Ligea, 55 

Ligurians, same as other Italic peoples, 
III, 114; original possession of Pisa 
by, 356 ff.; recapture of Pisa by, 360 f.; 
civilization of in second century, 361; 
strong by sea, 362; later used by 
Romans against Gauls, 363 

Liparaeans, 224, 344; allies of Syra- 
cuse, 225, 268 

Liparus, myth of, 223 f.; territory ruled 
by sons of, 223 f. 

Livy, synchronisms in, 296, n. 1; pos- 
sible dependence upon some Cam- 
panian writer, 342; account in of 
Greek fleet of 349 B.C., 345 ff.; 
duplications in, 353 f. 

Locri, hostile to Regium in 473 B. C., 31 

Lucullus, villa of, 208 F 

Luna, 361; capture by Ligurians, 362 


Mactorium, possibly situated at Maz- 
zarino, 139; secession of Geloans to, 


243 f. 

Magna Graecia, mixed elements in 
cities of, 80 

Magra, 365 

Marica, 1, n. 1 

Maroglio, valley of, 134 

Marsyas, symbol of liberty, 264 f., 328; 
identified with Silenus, 265 


Mausoleum, of Augustus, date of men- 
tion by Strabo, 392 f. 

Melius, Sp., 282 

Menenius Agrippa, and secessions of 
plebs, 241 f.; legend repetition of that 
of Telines, 248 f., 256 

Mesma, 31 

Metapontum, 351; 
Tarentum, 30, n. 1; 
Alexander, 103 

Metapontus, myth of, 68 

Metics, 263, n. 3 


dependence upon 
alliance with 


437 


Mezentius, legend of, 314 f. 

Micythus, 27, 37; colony founded by 
at Pyxus, 85 

Minae, 137, n. I 

Monte di Vico, inscription of, 190 f.; 
not site of fortress of Hiero, 194 f.; 
site of city of Pithecusae, 196 f. 


Morgantina, not at Mount Judica, 139; 
on summit of Heraeans, 139 f.; not 
at Caltagirone, 141; possibly at 
Terravecchia, 141 

Morges, 13 

Morgetians, modern traces of name, 23 


Naevius, 342 


Naples, date of fouriding of, 191 f.; 
coins of, 191 f., 218 f.; and Ischia at 
time of Sulla, 205 ff., 226; condition 
after Sulla, 211; cult of Athena at, 
218; quinquennial games at, 394 f. 


Naxos, 29; likeness of coins to coins 
probably from Ergetium, 117 ff.; 
aided by Ergetium in 425 B.C., 119 f. 

Neapolis, 331 

Neapolitans, on Ischia, 189 ff.; inscrip- 
tion referring to, 190 f. 


Nebrodes, 127; possibility that Piacus 
was located there, 127 f. 


Netum, 150 
Neworl, use of by Strabo, 383 ff. 
Nicias, defeat of at Assinarus, 147 f. 


Nicolaus of Damascus, followed by 
Strabo, 401, 427 f. 


Niebuhr, theory of concerning Greek 
fleet of 345 B. C., 349 

Nitrioli, 200 

Nola, an Ausonian city, 2, 81; coins of 
with Greek legends 81; coins of, 
r72t.,, ¥76:- (Greek. character of 
civilization, 177; probable existence 
of earlier city, 178 


Nuceria Alfaterna, name possibly of 
Umbrian origin, 166 


Nuraght, 171, n. 1 
Nysa, visited by Strabo, 410, 423, 429 


Ocinarus, river, mentioned by Lyco- 
phron, 55 

Ocresia, 113 

Oenotria, extension of name, 16 

Oenotrians, chap. i; origin of, 16 

Oil, see olive 


438 


Olive, probable early existence of in 
Italy, 310f.; shown on Apulian 
coins, 311; scarcity in Latium, 312; 
cost at Rome and at Athens, 312 f. 

Omphace, town of Sicani, 138 

Onatas, 35, n. 1 

Opici, division of Samnites, 5 f. 

Opicians, chap. i 

Orion, Mount, 5 

Oristano, 375 

Oscans, traces of Etruscan influence on 
alphabet of, 178 f. 

Osento, 7 


Paestum approached by sea by Alex- 
ander, 106; survival of mint of, 318 
Palice, founding of confused with mov- 
ing of Minae to plain, 137, n. 1 

Pandosia, 16, n. 3,71; coins of showing 
alliance with Croton, 81; death of 
Alexander at, 108 

Parthenope, 227 

Parthians, 390 f., 397 

Patrae, 396 

Patrons, 289, n. 3. 

Pausanias, legend of Euthymus in 
39 fi. 

Pelasgians, in Epirus at early date, 
71; in Italy, 71 

Perugia, error in Appian concerning 
war of, 367 ff.; account of burning in 
Dio, 367 

Petalism, 279, 282; connection with 
institution of decemvirate, 280 

Peucetians, derivation of name, 15 


Phalaecus, expedition of after Sacred 
War, 348f.; defeat of, 349; fate of 
mercenaries of, 349 f. 


Phalanx, Greek, in Roman military 
system, 322 

Pharsalia, 350 

Phayllus, 268 

Philistus, original source of later histo- 
rians, 295 

Philomelus, 350 

Phistelia, known only from Campanian 
coins, 164 

Phocaean, mercenaries, in Italy, 352 ff.; 
factory at Pisa, 357 f.; coins found on 
coast of Etruria, 359 


Povlky, pretended expedition of Aga- 
thocles against, chap. xiv 


Rd 


ANCIENT ITALY 


Point, real object of expedition of 
Agathocles, 158 f. 

Phraates, sending of sons to Rome, 
402 

Piacus, chap. xi, 126 ff.; coin of, 124; 
probable location of in Nebrodes, 
124 f.; rebuilt after capture, 128 

Pisa, early history of, chap. xxiii; an 
Etruscan city, 355 ff.; originally 
Ligurian, 356 ff.; not a colony of 
Pisae in Elis, 358; alliance with Rome, 
363 f. 

Piso, mentioned in Strabo, 387; not 
governor of I B.C., 387 f. 

Pithecusae, derivation of name, 185 f.; 
probably at Monte di Vico, 196 f. 

Pizzofalcone, site of Villa of Lucullus, 
208. , 

Pizzuta, ancient column termed, 151 f., 
152, n. I 

Polemon, 423 

Polyaenus, account of. stratagem of 
Agathocles in, 157 ff. 

Pompeii, traces of Etruscans at, 174, 178 

Populonia, 358 f. 

Porta Sole, 369 

Pozzuoli, superiority over Naples for 
naval arsenal, 209; benefited by 
Sulla, 210 

IIpoordrat tod Syyov, at Syracuse, in- 
stitution of, 261; gave rise to tribun- 
ate, 259 ff. 

Protagoras, 332 

Provinces, list of in Strabo, 382 f. 

Punta della Campanella, -Athenaeum 
of, 217 ff.; importance of possession 
to Naples, 227; maritime character 
of cult, 229 f. 

Pyrgi, plundered by Dionysius I, 269 

Pythagoras, statue of Euthymus by, 40; 
statue of Astylus by, 43; statue of in 
Rome, 268 

Pythodoris, 407, 421 f.; mention of later 
addition of Strabo’s, 399; life of in 
Strabo, 422 

Pythodorus, 423 

Pyxus, colony of Regium at, 32, 37; 
alliance with Siris, 82 f.; advantage to 
Siris, 84; history of in fifth century, 85 


Quinctius, Caeso, 
process against, 281 


Quinctius, D., 87 


improbability of 


INDEX 


Regium, alliance with Tarentum against 
Iapygians, chap. ii 

Relief, Greek, from S. Mauro, 131 ff.; 
description, 133; product of Dorian art 
of Gela, 134; material, 135 f. 

Relief, Sardinian, with inscription, 372; 
probably of Greek origin, 373 

Rome, alliance with Alexander against 
Samnites, 106 f.; termed a ‘Greek 
city,” 292, 318; coins with Greek 
types, 292, 318; accounts of capture 
by Gauls, 292f.; importance of at 
end of fifth century, 234; friendly 
relations with Syracuse, 234; elements 
in history borrowed from history of 
Syracuse, 235 ff.; according to Diony- 
sius early occupied by Siculi, 237; 
theory due to early commercial rela- 
tions, 238; falsity of history up to 
fourth century, 284 f.; false accounts 
borrowed, 286; influence of Greece 
on civilization of, 304 f., 343; slow to 
admit such influence, 305 f.; similarity 
of certain coins to those of Campania, 
317 f.; features of military system 
borrowed from Greeks, 322 f.; 
description of by Strabo, 392f. 


S. Lorenzo, substituted for Vulcan, 
369 

S. Maria della Lobbra, near Sorrento, 
213; festival of, 216 

S. Mauro, Greek relief from, 131 ff.; 
situation of, 134; probably Geloan 
outpost, 135; ancient name, 136 ff.; 
possibly Galarina, 144 

S. Restituta, cult of on Ischia and at 
Naples, 197, 228 

Samnite elements, in Roman history, 
chap. xxi 

Samnites, invasions of, 19; defeated by 
Alexander near Paestum, 106; wars 
of sustained by Tarentum, 323 

Samos, visit of Augustus to, 412 f. 

Sapriportem, probably error for ad 
Satyri portum, 87 

Sardinia, two Greek inscriptions from, 
371 ff., 374 ff.; Carthaginian domina- 
tion of, 377 f.; known to Greeks at 
least in sixth century, 377; archaeo- 
logical material of, 378 

Sardus, 376 

Sarno, valley of, traces of Daunians and 
Umbrians in, 178 f.; inferior develop- 
ment of inhabitants of even today, 179 


439 


Saturn, image of a Rome filled with oil, 
313; rites Greek, 313 

Saturo, Torre di, 88 - 

Satyra, legend of, 88 

Satyrium, harbor of, chap. vi; location 
of, 88 f.; near Tarentum, 89 

Scandula, 321 

Scylacine Gulf, called Terinaean by 
Thucydides, 56 

Secessions of plebs, 241 ff.; first seces- 
sion legendary, 242 f., 243, 249, 254; 
derived from Gela, 243 f.; introduc- 
tion of connected with cult of Ceres, 
252 

Selurus, 384 

Sergentium, or Ergetium, coins from, 
117 f.; likeness to coins of Naxos, 
118 

Sicani, of same race as Siculi, 
inhabited different region, 138 

Siceliot elements, in early Roman 
history, chap. xx, 259 ff., 267 f. 

“Sicilian,” places termed in Italy, 294, 
n. I, 299 f. 

Sicily, at time of Timoleon, 317 f. 


Siculi, good relations of with Chalcidio- 
Ionian cities, 120; hostility of toward 
Syracuse, 120, 150, n. 4; possible 
location of certain cities of among 
Heraeans, 132, 136 ff.; same race as 
Sicani, but inhabited different region, 
138; those supposed to come to Rome 
really Siceliots, 239 


138; 


Siculian Sea, termed ‘“Ausonian,” 3 f. 

Siculus, 13, 14, 298; exile from Rome, 
237 {.; mame equivalent to Siceliot, 
238 

Siculus, cognomen of Cloelii, 241 

Silae, 57 

Silenus, represented on coins, 265, n. 2 

Sipontum, in Ausonia, 7; conquered by 
Alexander, 102 

Sirens, Temple of, near Sorrento, 213 ff.; 
discovery of probable site, 213 ff.; 
archaic head from, 213; cult of, 215, 
222, 230f.; gave way to cult of 
Athena, 230 

Siris, 32, 36; origin of, chap. v; praised 
by Archilochus, 68; why thought 
Colophonian, 72; Rhodians at, 76; 
date of destruction, 77f.; use of 
Achaean alphabet on coins, 78 f.; 
attacked by Metapontum, Sybaris, 


440 


ar" Croton, 82; alliance with Pyxus,- 

82 ff. , 

Siritis, visited by Trojans, 69; con- 
sidered by Athenians as their property, 
75 

Sorrento, Temple of Sirens near, 213 ff.; 
discovery of ancient remains near, 
213; used as port of call by Liparae- 
ans, 224 

Strabo, legend of Euthymus in, 40; 
time when wrote Historical Geography 
380 ff.; place, 41off.; few events 
referring to period between 7 B.C. 
and 17 A. D., 405; probably retouched 
work after 17 A. D., 405, 409; point 
of view of, 407, 427; date of birth, 
410, n. 1; probably wrote away from 
Rome, 414 ff ; notin Rome after 7 B.c., 
414 ff.; travels of in East, 418 ff.; 
real profession of, 420f.; called “the 
Cappadocian,” 425 

Sulla, policy of toward Naples, 206 f.; 
preference of for Puteoli, 209 f. 

Sybaris, 32; and legend of Euthymus, 
45f.; mear Parnassus, 46; in Italy, 
origin of, 47; alliance of with Locri, 


Synchronisms, intentional in Roman 
history, 255 ff., 278, 289, 295 f., 354; 
refer exclusively to history of Cam- 
pania, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, 296 

Syracusans, occupation of Ischia by, 
189 ff. 

Syracuse, capture of Piacus by, 123 f.; 
influence of on Italy proper, 221; 
transference of history to that of 
Rome, 255f., 280, 283f.; hated by 
Romans, 267; importance of, 287, 
300 f.; coins of found in Etruria, 301, 
n. I 


alliance of with 
Regium, chap. ii, 33 ff.; siege of 
Romans in citadel of, 87 ff.; and 
Alexander of Epirus, 102 f.; rupture 
with Alexander, 104; military supe- 
riority over Rome, 323; furnished cult 
of Dis to Rome, 337 

Tarquinii, 272, n. 2 

Tauromenium, expedition of Agathocles 
against, 158f.; real object, 161 f.; 
ally of Syracuse, 161; possibly founded 
by Doric Syracuse, 162 

Teanim, 171 

Telines, ends secession at Gela, 243 f.; 


Tarentum, 345 ff.; 


ANCIENT ITALY 


from Telos, 244; connection with 
Roman secessions, 248 f. 

Telmessus, 111, n. 3. 

Temesa, an Ausonian city, 3; legend of 
Euthymus at, 39 ff.; origin of, 40, 
n. 3; in power of Locrians, 44 

Templum, 315, n. 2 

Terina, 45, chap. iv; location of, 53; 
probable existence of two cities of 
same name, 62; emporium of, 62 £.; 
coins of, 63 f.; capture of mountain 
city by Lucanians, 64; capture by 

Alexander, 65; condition after time 
of Hannibal, 66 

Terinaeus, Sinus, 54 

Teuranus, Ager, derivation of name 
from Terina, 61 

Tharros, Greek remains at, 376 

Theophilus, of Paphlagonia, 429 f. 

Theopompus, 350 

Thucydides, account in of defeat at 
Assinarus, 147 f.; source for all later 
historians, 156 

Thumelicus, 414, n. 2 

Thuriae, chap. vii; inscription giving 
name, go; probable location of, 92 f., 
95 f.; possibly colony of Thurii, 96 

Thurii, 321, 330; relation of coinage to 
that of Apulia, 95; laws of, 332f.; 
superiority of code to that of Rome, 
334 f.; compulsory education at, 335 

Thymbris, 238 f. 

Tiber, termed Tybris, 238 

Tiberius, mention of later addition by 

Timaeus, one of originators of pseudo- 
Roman history, 297 

Timoleon, 289, 346; resemblance of 
expedition to that of Alexander, 109; 
state of Sicily at time of, 347 f.; em- 
ployment by of mercenaries from 
Phocaean war, 351 f. 

Tin, derived from Sardina by Phoeni- 
cians, 378 

Tiriolo, site of Terina, 57, 60; founded 
by Croton, 58; important strategic 
point, 60 

Tombs, resemblance between Sicilian 
and Etruscan, 271 

Tralles, 429; slaughter of Romans at, 429 

Tribunate, parallel magistracy to at 
Syracuse, 260, 280; developed from 
mpoorarat Tod Sjpou, 260 ff.; and right 


INDEX 


of asylum, 263f.; introduced from 
Sicily, 273; date of introduction, 
273 £. 

Trinacia, account of capture in Diodorus, 
123; probably Piacus meant, 124 f. 


Triopium, 93 

Turnus, termed Daunius in Vergil, 
167 

Tusciano, 166 

Tutela, myth of at Rome, 252, n. 5 


Twelve Tables, Greek influence on, 
329 f.; probable date of, 330; bor- 
rowed from different cities, 331 f. 


Tybris, 238 
Tyndarides, 279 


Umbrians of Campania, chap. xv; 
mentioned by Polybius, 163; allied 
with Etruscans, 165f.; traces of in 
valley of Sarno, 178 f. 


Valerius, and secessions of plebs, 242 f., 
249 

Velia, 250, 309; founding of, 73 

Velites, 324 

Verruca, la, situation of, 113 

Verrugo, 112; same as civitas Vericu- 
lana, 114 

Vesuvius, 173 f. 

Vine, importance of to Rome, 313 f., 


441 


315 f.; preceded cult of Dionysus 
at Rome, 314 


Virginia, 285, n. 2 

Vizzini, possibly site of ancient Echetla, 
136 

Voltaterrae, 358 f., 364 

Volcanic activity, on Ischia, 199 f. 

Vonones, 402 

Vulcan, cult of at Perugia, 367; asso- 
ciated with cult of Hera, 367 f.; name 
of early Jupiter at Rome, 368 f.; 
probable location of temple at Perugia 
369; gave way to S. Lorenzo, 369 


Vulcanus-Summanus, name of earliest 
Jupiter at Rome, 368 f. 


Ware, Chalcidian, possibly derived from 
Ischia, 188 

Wine, not common in Latium before 
fourth century, 314; not used in early 
sacrifices, 315 

Xenophanes, allusion in to Colophonian 
origin of Siris, 72 

Xpvoeia, on Ischia, probable error for 
xurpeia, 187 f. 


Zaleucus, 48, 331. 
Zenon, 383 


Zeus Eleutherius, 264, n. 1; connected 
with Demeter, 264 


7 


7 
= 





University of California ; 
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
Return this material to the library 
from which it was borrowed. 


JAN 25 1999 











eerelt 
eet 


T . ete 


Haein 


br eee eer 


? ’ 


bees 


eee 


hit 


. 


oe 
eiett 


o 
oF 

















































































































mitt 
ae) 








ae 





























viele 


ale 





























a eent 
anene 
i" 




















te 
mt : # : wh 

T > ate: Lieiel! ener 
Teleley Hpiheitiy sititss *iei8 


elelele 
> 


tet 


























oe 








2 
rere, 





° 
° ie 
Tee 
seit 
o* 























; 
af tht t Toler 
i itt pitti by 
Mu : te eleceieets 719 > 
ni 
frit 
Tet : 
* ut ie! ttt palele 
tele terete! aalstetstes ty 
Magia ttratatetent wat a 












































